If I'm not mistaken, too, the $2Bn investment is just the beginning. The attacker would also have to cover the costs of at least 51% of the energy used in the n

If I'm not mistaken, too, the $2Bn investment is just the beginning. The attacker would also have to cover the costs of at least 51% of the energy used in the network - much less find somewhere they can use that much energy without someone noticing. The idea that a 51% attack on Bitcoin is plausible just isn't sound, imho.