"China" is an aggregate of consensus and cannot act "alone" as an irrational actor. If they colluded to change a transaction, there would be a net split and eve

"China" is an aggregate of consensus and cannot act "alone" as an irrational actor. If they colluded to change a transaction, there would be a net split and everyone would know. Again, I'm standing by the cost analysis of acting as an irrational actor indicating those actors will not act unless the aggregate itself is irrational, which is a rare and separate issue as that being discussed.