Quote from: franky1 on July 30, 2024, 09:37:42 AM

if you check how ethereum (when it was PoW) had its own independent market sentiment and volatility based on its international variance window of value premium based on the differing mining costs due to electricity price variance... and then when going PoS you can see it become more of a shadow of bitcoin movement/wiggles cloning the ups and downs of the bitcoin market. and from the point of may 14th 2021 when it went very stable in comparison to bitcoins market. as seen by the bitcoin:ethereum market chart of the last 5 years where from may 14th 2021 the variance of the 2 markets went from instable to stable.

this is due to the bitcoin market taking control of the sentiment of ethereum market by arbitraging the market
check out the 5 year charts of the btc:eth market (stabilised where over 3 years the ratio only changed from 1btc:12eth to 1btc:20eth) whereby ethereum is slowly losing its ratio amount whilst still shadowing bitcoins price at the depleting ratio(slowly changing/losing its peg)

its went from a massive 1btc:60eth(2019 independent) to a 1btc:12eth(2021 controlled) when bitcoiners took control of ethereum sentiment and artificially fixed ethereum at a bubble market

this arbitrage ability KEPT the ethereum market up high even when the ethereums cost base of acquiring new coin by other means dropped by 95%
this means whilst the PoS coin acquisition market dropped to ~$50 a coin cost, the speculative market remained artificially held up at $thousands purely due to the arbitrage opportunities performed by bitcoiners

this bubble can burst
its also worth noting that you STILL think that its only going to need 1-4% of ether.. again i suggested you do some math, and i even done some math for you based on a hypothetical of freezing the prices.. now if you realise the 5-25% of coins will actually cause a price change.. meaning even 5% is best case of zero market crash, and its more likely to be a higher number of coins sold to get to the dollar amounts to need to buy the asics to perform an attack..

and as said, but worth emphasising
whilst ether stakeholders sell off and wait months to gather hardware to attack bitcoin but end up becoming honest bitcoin miners due to their ROI being at risk.. the bitcoiners whom could decide to buy up the cheaper ethereum can INSTANTLY attack the ethereum network due to its instant access to coin to then stake to then control code changes and block verification without need to wait months. so ethereum can be attacked far easier than bitcoin

so play some scenarios out and run the math. its fun and educational

for instance,
imagine the arbitrage market route of
ETH->USD->BTC
when a eth staker sells for dollar it causes a eth price decrease. then when they hand $ to asic manufacturers, those manufacturers could invest that $ in BTC causing a BTC price increase.
USD->BTC
then using the BTC to buy CHEAPER ETH,
USD->BTC->ETH
the traders can repeat the arbitrage cycle and cause more ETH price crash, repeat
ETH->USD->BTC->ETH->USD

Sorry I'm lagging a bit behind the discussion. My internet is not the best where I'm at right now.

Well, for the sake of the argument, let us just agree that it could be as low as 5% for now? And then we can always discuss later if it could be even less.

So as I understand you, you are saying that Ethereum's value is not at all based in its estimated use as a cryptocurrency (by the investors), now and in the future, but its value is instead based solely on some current money scheme, and one which is dependent on the existence of Bitcoin?

I hope I'm not the only one who doesn't know about this. Can you perhaps briefly explain how this scheme works to inflate the prince of Ethereum? Or if you have some links/references, maybe you could give them?

I will posit, however, that if Bitcoin indeed has this security flaw and Ethereum does not, then it would seem to me that Bitcoin is the inflated cryptocurrency, and that Ethereum is bound to overtake it at some point, unless of course Bitcoin is able to mitigate this attack vector.

To your point about Bitcoin being able to attack Ethereum, the point of Ethereum's consensus mechanism, in its current state, is that at least a third of the stakers is supposed to confirm a block before it reaches finality. So that would already be 33% of the Ether required (assuming that intention of the attack will be leaked and that the Ethereum investors have enough time to join the staking process), which is $144B.

And what's more, the Bitcoin investors would only be able to grow their assets by ~30% if they somehow manage this, whereas the Ethereum investors would be able to grow their assets by ~200%, i.e. given that the attack causes the rival to take its competitors full share of the cryptocurrency market.

If the roles were reversed, on the other hand, and Bitcoin was ~30% of the price of Ethereum, the Bitcoin investors would not even have the money to afford the attack, albeit if we count only their wealth in Bitcoin assets.

And on top of all this, if you for instance read the 'Proof-of-Stake and Security' section of https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/#pos-and-security, it seems that the Ethereum investors would just choose to revert the 51% attack in case that it happens (similarly to what they did with the DAO). This is possible when the voting power of the cryptocurrency ledger is ultimately distributed to the stakeholders/investors rather than whoever controls a portion of the hash rate in the world.