Let's start with a question: does it make a difference if you hold 1000$ in Euro compared to holding it in Gold?

What is a bitcoin? We know, that per convention bitcoin is a protocol-token of the underlying protocol called Bitcoin (major B) and we know that BTC is the currency-symbol which is used to express the monetary value of bitcoin tokens. BTC is traded on secondary markets (like exchanges). Every market has its own price. Sites like coinmarketcap.com add up all the BTC-prices to generate one average price for BTC.

If there are local anomalies the price can be distorted. Anyways, do you really know what the exchange is offering to you? Fact is,

• there are synthetic bitcoins created by fractional reserve
• there are polluted bitcoin
• and even worse: even if you hold an address pointing to digital tokens, you can have either original Satoshi-Protocol-token, Bitcoin-Core-token or in the best case, both.

[can you spot the difference?]

Imagine there comes a time when the world economy relies on Bitcoin, it moons/saves value... but You instead hold a bag full of tokens which belong to a protocol which´s execution recently has failed due to an attack. Epic fail.

Exact details on this issue, you can read in @anonymint ´s recent article on why bitcoins price will go down.

---

Fragility-heuristic instead of pre-diction

Let's dig to the epistemics behind predictions. The fragility argument is a heuristic and not really a way to predict. You look at the robustness of the system towards harm/stressor. Like software-bugs can´t be ruled out for any given program, you simply can't cover all possible attacks against a complex, multi-modal system.

But, you can quantify the fragility of the system. Is your system open source and open development? Is your system physically redundant? Up to a certain threshold, binary properties like decentralization don't matter. What really matters is the distribution of power (e.g. hash-power). Of course, you will never achieve equal distribution, since the initial distribution of wealth is Pareto or follows some power-law BUT! at least you need to have a game-theoretical equilibrium. But the problem here, you really can't tell about the real distribution. We only know that it is in some cases lucrative to attack Bitcoin.

What part of the game theory and economics is your pea-sized brain incapable of understanding?

I pointed out that after the fork off, Legacy address hodlers will have tokens in both forks and the Core address hodlers will only have Core shitcoins. So Core supporters will have no Legacy coins to sell. And Legacy supporters will have Core shitcoins to dump. Why would they instead dump their real BTC if they made the conscious decision to hodl in legacy addresses.

[:D :D :D this bitcointalk thread is an entertaining piece of evidence for IYI (intellectual yet idiots) they don't want to understand the point anonymint makes]

the game-theoretic homeomorphy here is right, but I'm not sure if it is sufficient to model only the attack without checking for real-world consequences.

When there is information asymmetry (which is information´s (or more correct ignorant´s) natural tendency), most people will not know about Legacy. But the set of participants in the top of the wealth-distribution are likely the same participants as in the set of people aware of Legacy and its strategical importance. Given this assumed correlation, we should expect the same distribution and therefore the same Nash-equilibrium (or non-equilibrium, depending on the current state) as we have right now. (One pre-assumption is that within the next month, there is no big disruption of the game.)

So, if they dump QT/Core, they (miners, exchanges, service-providers) either must be coordinated/ share the same plan in order to succeed with an economically intact ecosystem (Legacy tokens are not the tokens adopted, so there is a lower associated utility/usability) OR there must be one dominating participant...but again he has the same problem, as he holds now an extreme-distributed coin, which´s game value =/= its effective value, right?

So, in the end of the game, the tail cuts itself from the body. But neither tail, body nor coins exist in a vacuum, there is always an ecosystemic interdependence.

So there must be either massive coordination beforehand (then it's like a Rothschild 2.0 NWO domination) OR its a multi-billion dollar suicide bombing/kamikaze-attack on bitcoin.

Anyways, its a massive risk (and opportunity) to us normies and the take-home is (I guess): check to own both: Legacy addresses AND Core addresses! For how to find out if your coins are one or the other, I highly recommend to read anonymint´s article.

You have been bogged

You can have many dynamical predictive models, but when the initial assumptions are ignorant about the fact that there are many possible origins for your bitcoins and you don't know which bitcoin you hold, you will fail. Bitcoin (the most robust version) will go probably to Millions per coin but this is another story. If two assets are not the same (like Euros and Gold) it makes a difference where you allocate your wealth to. Let us know if you got the point or your arguments against it, or if your are a "hold ma cons on an exchange" person and simply too lazy :D. shame on me I didn't knew how important this is.