3 ms·

Thanks for the concrete counterexample. I still find it dubious that the owner of Bank A would be willing to destroy a stream of income as considerable as a 51%

Thanks for the concrete counterexample. I still find it dubious that the owner of Bank A would be willing to destroy a stream of income as considerable as a 51% stake in BTC just to preempt a competitor in another market. That seems too self-sacrificial to be practical. Also, you're missing the point that Bank B's successful adoption of BTC would also benefit Bank A's owner, since that adoption would be a boon for BTC, which Bank A owner has a very large stake in.

msandford 13y ago
It's all a matter of the right price. Bank A doesn't own 51% of bitcoin, it has control over 51% of the mining pool. As a rational agent in the bitcoin-only world that's worth SOMETHING but not billions. As a rational agent in the total world it might be worth sacrificing $100mm on the pool if it can cost your competitor $10b.
jre 13y ago
Good points. What I wanted to point out is that the typical arguments about an agent's incentives to not destroy BTC usually fail to take into account gains outside of the BTC world.