> The health of an economy is measured by how quickly money flows in it
Bitcoin isn't an economy. It is just a small part of the overall economy
That's because you don't need a 50% attack to destroy bitcoin. You just need the stroke of a pen, and it's price, and utility would collapse.
Those things should ought to have a much higher cost to attack since they hold significantly more value than Bitcoin currently.
> You just need the stroke of a pen, and it's price, and utility would collapse.
Then simply valuate it on what it will be worth in a post-regulation future rather than its current value. If you really believe that will happen, then it presents a great shorting opportunity for you and you would be helping to price in risks such as that.
Depending on the kind of regulation, its value would either be roughly the same (if the regulation is of the KYC form), or would go into free-fall (if the regulation is of the 'this is illegal, starting 30 days from now').
But that's not my point. My point is that the much touted BTC resilience to a 49% attack is a solution to a problem that nobody has.
> My point is that the much touted BTC resilience to a 49% attack is a solution to a problem that nobody has.
If nobody has the problem, then nobody will buy it.
A system where you essentially can't transact is economically dead. The health of an economy is measured by how quickly money flows in it, not in how wealthy a dragon sitting on a pile of gold can get.
It can be a speculative system, but that's far less useful than being a monetary system. Bitcoin is a terrible currency in the same way that houses, or diamond rings are a terrible currency. Settling transactions in them is slow and incredibly expensive.