uote author=RainbowKun link=topic=5349730.msg57480332#msg57480332 date=1626516697]
If someone really has the wealth to do things above, I don’t think he’ll choose to do that in view of the fact that his success in attacking Bitcoin network would devalue Bitcoin instantly and gravely for the premise of the existence of Bitcoin is the temper-proof feature of data in blockchain. Otherwise, the value of Bitcoin would go zero directly,
then the one who suffers biggest loss is absolutely hacker who spent great cost in attack.[/quote]
As long as the attacker is being rational. It's different case if the attacker don't care about loss-loss situation, although i think it's very unlikely.
I've seen situations arise where people have attempted to cheat other aspects of game theory relating to Bitcoin. In the past, some have spoofed their full node client version or name to make it appear as though it is a different client. This was an, almost geopolitical, attempt to manipulate consensus, but relating to demographics instead of a physical locale.
I'm not sure what event you're talking about, but is it related with user activated soft fork (UASF) or user activated hard fork (UAHF)?