Thank you very much for your reply, and appreciate the high-IQ simulation,

but here’s the problem:

You’re assuming this is a clean trade in a frictionless market.

In reality，51% attack ≠ profitable trade.

It’s an existential attack, not a money-making arbitrage.

Shorting BTC while attacking the network sounds clever—until you realize:

1️⃣Markets freeze.

Exchanges halt trading. DEX liquidity evaporates. Vols spike. ETF redemptions break. You don’t just “print billions” like it’s a button.

2️⃣Counterparty risk explodes.

If you’re shorting MSTR or miners, who’s filling your order book mid-attack? Who’s buying your puts? TradFi hates chaos—volatility crushes trade execution.

3️⃣Reputation risk is real.

No major fund survives being exposed as the actor who nuked BTC. This isn’t a backroom poker game—it’s geopolitics, public markets, and the global financial system.

And lastly: If BTC truly drops 70%+ on chain trust collapse, the rest of crypto dies with it.

ETH doesn’t “win” that day—it bleeds out next to the corpse.

A 51% attack isn’t a trade. It’s an act of war. And wars are never clean, never controlled, and almost never profitable for the initiator.

So yes—ETH may be the better SoV long term, but not because someone’s going to assassinate BTC on purpose and ride off with a suitcase of profits.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。