BITWU.ETH(@BTW0205 ):Thank you very much for your reply, and appreciate the high-IQ simulation, but here’s the problem: You’re assuming this is a clean trade in a frictionless market. In reality，51% attack ≠ profitable trade. It’s an existential attack, not a money-making arbitrage. Shorting BTC while attacking the network sounds clever—until you realize: 1️⃣Markets freeze. Exchanges halt trading. DEX liquidity evaporates. Vols spike. ETF redemptions break. You don’t just “print billions” like it’s a button. 2️⃣Counterparty risk explodes. If you’re shorting MSTR or miners, who’s filling your order book mid-attack? Who’s buying your puts? TradFi hates chaos—volatility crushes trade execution. 3️⃣Reputation risk is real. No major fund survives being exposed as the actor who nuked BTC. This isn’t a backroom poker game—it’s geopolitics, public markets, and the global financial system. And lastly: If BTC truly drops 70%+ on chain trust collapse, the rest of crypto dies with it. ETH doesn’t “win” that day—it bleeds out next to the corpse. A 51% attack isn’t a trade. It’s an act of war. And wars are never clean, never controlled, and almost never profitable for the initiator. So yes—ETH may be the better SoV long term, but not because someone’s going to assassinate BTC on purpose and ride off with a suitcase of profits.

2025.05.14 23:18

Thank you very much for your reply, and appreciate the high-IQ simulation, but here’s the problem: You’re assuming this is a clean trade in a frictionless market. In reality，51% attack ≠ profitable trade. It’s an existential attack, not a money-making arbitrage. Shorting BTC while attacking the network sounds clever—until you realize: 1️⃣Markets freeze. Exchanges halt trading. DEX liquidity evaporates. Vols spike. ETF redemptions break. You don’t just “print billions” like it’s a button. 2️⃣Counterparty risk explodes. If you’re shorting MSTR or miners, who’s filling your order book mid-attack? Who’s buying your puts? TradFi hates chaos—volatility crushes trade execution. 3️⃣Reputation risk is real. No major fund survives being exposed as the actor who nuked BTC. This isn’t a backroom poker game—it’s geopolitics, public markets, and the global financial system. And lastly: If BTC truly drops 70%+ on chain trust collapse, the rest of crypto dies with it. ETH doesn’t “win” that day—it bleeds out next to the corpse. A 51% attack isn’t a trade. It’s an act of war. And wars are never clean, never controlled, and almost never profitable for the initiator. So yes—ETH may be the better SoV long term, but not because someone’s going to assassinate BTC on purpose and ride off with a suitcase of profits.

gphummer.eth 🦇🔊@gphummer

2025.05.14 17:48

I will give you credit - this is a significantly higher IQ response than 99% of American Bitcoin holders could write 😂 Your critique boils down to the operational complexity of executing this attack. I would argue that if a fund (or coordinated group of funds) can 10-100x their capital and make billions of dollars by doing 51% attacking BTC and shorting it, it is very likely to happen, even if they have to jump through a lot of hoops. Even if some exchange withdrawals get frozen after the attack, there will still be tradfi ways to short BTC (ETFs, MSTR, miner stocks), it will be shortable on DEXes, and other crypto-assets will likely plunge in tandem, which will be shortable as well. Options are another great way to execute this trade. Once a 51% is successfully executed, BTC is finished. It doesn't matter if the software soft/hard forks, or anything else - its SoV meme will be permanently wrecked, and I would expect it to immediately plunge in price by 70% or more. I would also argue that "attacking the soil you depend on" doesn't matter, since this attack can be executed by outside actors who don't care about that "soil." I think BTC and ETH are in direct competition to be the internet's primary SoV, and ETH is the only rational, sustainable choice out of the two.