I'm surprised how you interpret my post. I'm still not entirely sure if I should reply... Anyway!
I think you overestimate the amount of control and what's at stake for such a potential malicious actor. To gain control over a majority of hashrate you will have to have a lot of skin in the game. Seriously, tell me, who would want to risk that many skin? You make funky actions with your majority of hashrate, the market would very very likely go crazy and go down the hill.
That's what I already wrote before, maybe in less words.
Interesting, how do you come to such a conclusion? Of course I'm aware and pretty sure that a lot of trust in Bitcoin would be lost, if substantial double spends were observed. Loss of trust would certainly lead to loss of value. This pretty much inevitable breakdown of value of Bitcoin would go well for the malicious actor as his required investment would go "poof!", too.
Doesn't make any sense for the bad adversary, does it!?
Your next paragraph doesn't make much sense to me, but that could be entirely me. I may sound like a broken record, but in the end a malicious actor simply doesn't benefit from his disruptive actions. Too much skin in the game, too much to loose itself.
What the heck has Arion Kurtaj to do in this discussion, c'mon, be serious.
They would have control of a Trillion dollar network.
I think you overestimate the amount of control and what's at stake for such a potential malicious actor. To gain control over a majority of hashrate you will have to have a lot of skin in the game. Seriously, tell me, who would want to risk that many skin? You make funky actions with your majority of hashrate, the market would very very likely go crazy and go down the hill.
That's what I already wrote before, maybe in less words.
I dont think you understand the trust that would be lost in the system if a large double spend was successful.
Interesting, how do you come to such a conclusion? Of course I'm aware and pretty sure that a lot of trust in Bitcoin would be lost, if substantial double spends were observed. Loss of trust would certainly lead to loss of value. This pretty much inevitable breakdown of value of Bitcoin would go well for the malicious actor as his required investment would go "poof!", too.
Doesn't make any sense for the bad adversary, does it!?
Your next paragraph doesn't make much sense to me, but that could be entirely me. I may sound like a broken record, but in the end a malicious actor simply doesn't benefit from his disruptive actions. Too much skin in the game, too much to loose itself.
What the heck has Arion Kurtaj to do in this discussion, c'mon, be serious.