[edited out]
Right I get that. But as I said btc could go to 100-500k and do it quickly.
Price changes do no lopsiddedly (or disproportionately) benefit one side over the other... meaning that merely because the price goes up, it does not likely disproportionately benefit the attackers over the defenders
(sure much of this is theory, so it would have to get put to play to really verify the extent to which the incentives might either hold up or crumble in unexpected ways, but you filly willy are not providing any evidence to really suggest that either factually or logically that automatically the attackers are going to be benefited merely because BTC prices go up or some other matter changes in bitcoin, and surely I will grant you that the more quickly that anything changes, the more likely that it is easier to attack, but we do not even have evidence that a 5 to 25x change in price from here, in a quick manner would be enough in order to create the level of instability that you are hypothesizing as if it were a likely scenario).
Remember the hashrate attack done in 2021
a 50% drop in mining due to a Chinese mining ban.
How about right now Chinese government direct controls 20% of all mining gear.
They could slash the hashrate by 20% on day 1 of the 14 days.
In fact there is evidence this is being tested as I type.
I will post a link.
Yeah.. and how did that 2021 situation go for China..
That would have been a pretty good opportunity to put a 51% attack test into practice.. but they did not do it (if they had been planning to do such? I am not saying that I know, but it had seemed like it could have been possible that the Chinese were in a decently good place to make 51% attack in 2021, and it is going to be a wee bit harder after a couple of more years of network building and experience (seemingly largely from the mining angle of "network building")
How would you like btc to be 500k in 2029 and the networks drops 65% of its hash on day 1 of the diff adjustment.
BTW I have seen these very deep early drops during the first 100 blocks of a new 14 day period on more than 1 occasion.
Yes.. you have quite a bit of theoretical discussion regarding how an attack might play out.. and even regarding some potential (theoretical) set ups for an attack, and it seems to me to be a pretty expensive play.. and let's see if such a thing happens.. To me, such attacks to be carried out successfully and even sustainably in a way to keep network effects in such a way that allows an actual payoff for the attacker (sure they might want to merely kill bitcoin, but that would be expensive too) does not seem as likely as you seem to be making it out to be (maybe that's part of the reason that you have been historically failing/refusing to sufficiently and adequately stack dee cornz?)
Maybe or maybe in 2056 or 2072 a frozen coin rule is done.
Any account that has not made a withdrawal in 60 years must take some coin out or it is fed back into the reward system as lost currency.
if it is 2072 and btc is 1 million dollars with 1 million coins frozen from 2009 to 2012 I could see this happening.
But I would be 115 years old to be able to see it.
Yes.. you have a lot of dumb fringe ideas, and I am not even suggesting that your ideas are very original.... but they surely are based on fantasy like scenarios that are in the ballpark of almost impossible to happen (if all actual relevant - and more likely - factors were to be taken into account).
Part of the reason that you are likely going to continue to have fun staying more poor than you otherwise "could have been."
In udder wurds, no one can save you, if you are not willing to save ur lil selfie.
Pour one out 4 dee filly.
I am not even going to proclaim that you are retarded.
Not going to go there.. Not going to go there.
Poll
