The thing that defines it to be a Nash equilibrium: namely, a Nash equilibrium is such, that for any individual entity, deviating from the strategy that consists of the Nash equilibrium is less advantageous than keeping with it. So once a system is in a Nash equilibrium, no individual entity has any incentive to leave it if it acts alone without collusion.
A Nash Equilibruim suggests there are different strategy profiles. In the context you present there are only ONE set of players, the miners.
Everyone else are blind users, correct?
Well, if miners adopted it, there would be not much choice but to follow along or leave your holdings for what it is.
Yes, because "validating nodes" and "economic actors" have nothing to do with one another.
Validating nodes are (maybe Sybiled) Joe's that have software running in their basement. Economic actors are those that buy coins on exchanges. Different beasts all together. Visibly they are so poor that they can't afford a $30.- disk investment per year in their node, so as an economic actor, they are insignificant.
Validating nodes are (maybe Sybiled) Joe's that have software running in their basement. Economic actors are those that buy coins on exchanges. Different beasts all together. Visibly they are so poor that they can't afford a $30.- disk investment per year in their node, so as an economic actor, they are insignificant.
Pray tell me sir how economic actors weight the value of the coins they purchase and whether or not the monetary base has not been inflated to oblivion?