IMHO it's also important - the capitalization of Bitcoin - is only 30.000.000.000 $. There are a lot of powerful funds or some companies, how have much more money. So if they want - they can push / pump/ hold / sell. They have enough power to destroy Bitcoin.
It's at $38B, and there aren't a lot of companies that would be able to take on something with that value and destroy it without also destroying the value of the company. Most organizations couldn't even pull something like that off.
I am far more concerned about the power plays and lack of community interest that could result of the recent events dealing with the blocksize, but it's looking like it will be getting resolved so there is a fair amount of hope for that to go to the back burner and solve the issues we've been experiencing.
Amazing how in 3-months bitcoin (mkt cap) approaching $50B so quickly....the level where I say BTC is not so trivial anymore.
True, villainous reputation would be labeled for any entity (or entities) working to attack or take down Bitcoin...but couldn't this same exact thing be achieved
without any such labeling by simply changing the rules of the protocol (take-over without traditional mining - ie segwit)? Or even further centralizing need/cost of hardware for mining the protocol (blocksize)?
What is the current total size of the bitcoin blockchain?
Then why would there be a push for blocksizes to go larger? (more susceptible to spam attacks, blockchain bloat, requirement for more expensive capital hardware mining pools)
Why wouldn't there be a push for smaller blocksizes? Shouldn't the protocol decrease blocksize from 1mb to 750kb? (limit spam in a block, reduce bloat, increase decentralization)
