Im not talking about game theory. I simply pointed out that the operator of a pool could use their users hashrate maliciously before anyone had a chance to move their hashrate off the pool. Effectively when looking at short term attacks like double spends they do control the hash, not the individual miners. Their incentive to do so is completely irrelevant to my statement. Your fork tracker is useless when a longer chain is being built in secret. Sure the pool might have a few hours of bad luck, but so will the whole network if 51% of the hashrate drops.
This is a very good point and is no different from selfish mining, in which miners "hide" their generated blocks from the main blockchain and only require 28% of the hash power, according to this https://www.certik.com/resources/blog/7uiBC4AA6ex2MS9eEnkZKy-blockchain-fundamentals-key-consensus-algorithms.Really? 
Money means nothing to the government. They can print it as they please. Never underestimate what they will do to keep their backdoor inflation tool as the global reserve currency.
Do you think someone like Arion Kurtaj would have cared about economic suicide if he got access to a few pools instead of nvidia, uber and the others?
I think there are a lot of scenarios , although highly unlikely where game theory doesnt apply. I dont think people put enough stock in those.
Exactly. Also, in my opinion, the government might be interested in controlling bitcoin rather than destroying it. Money means nothing to the government. They can print it as they please. Never underestimate what they will do to keep their backdoor inflation tool as the global reserve currency.Do you think someone like Arion Kurtaj would have cared about economic suicide if he got access to a few pools instead of nvidia, uber and the others?
I think there are a lot of scenarios , although highly unlikely where game theory doesnt apply. I dont think people put enough stock in those.