[shawnz]

Not true. For example a monetary system might be valuable because it supports high transaction volumes even at a low rate, or because it has high costs to attack.

> 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

[vkou]

The cost to attack bitcoin is a lot lower than the cost to attack the euro, the usd, the yen, or even the rouble.

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.

[shawnz]

> The cost to attack bitcoin is a lot lower than the cost to attack the euro, the usd, the yen, or even the rouble.

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.

[vkou]

Market cap of the Ruble is 800 billion USD, market cap of BTC is currently 900 billion USD.

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.

[shawnz]

Well interestingly, the cost to maintain the Russian military is only about 10x higher than the cost to maintain Bitcoin (and obviously the Russian military is defending more than just the currency).

> 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.