>>60830709
>bitshit does it. Top 2 pools in bitchit control 60 percent of the total hashrate. Yet nobody does reorgs or double spend attempts.

Apples and oranges. Bitcoin's mining economics and hardware specialization are completely different so the lack of State-sponsored attacks so far is not a guarantee but a contingent equilibrium. But if conditions changed (block rewards shrank, profitability tanked or external incentives were offered), "vested interest" alone wouldn't stop someone with overwhelming hash from attacking. Saying "it hasn't happened yet" is not a security guarantee, it's survivorship bias.


>They have vested interest in bitchit's value as a future-looking investment.

Making the security of the network dependent on muh performance leaves it vulnerable to market manipulation. By tying security to market performance, PoW systems effectively outsource their resilience to the mood of the market, they aren't robust against external actors who can fuck with the price at scale. That's why exchanges, ETFs and large custodians controlling liquidity are such choke points: the same hands that can swing price can indirectly weaken network security. A truly resilient system would decouple its security guarantees from speculative valuation. Bitcoin hasn't, and that leaves it exposed.

>>60830717
>dude it is amazing that you are repeating this mantra over and over at every thread, and psyopping yourself into believing it.

It seems you're having trouble understanding that people are indeed capable of consistently donating to their favorite charities. And some people's favorite charity just happens to be Monero.

>While, you are very murky about what is "acceptable loss" (how many percent? for whom? at what KWh/cent energy prices)

That's all very individual, isn't it? I might be able to afford to pay an extra $20 on my power bill, somebody else might only be able to manage $10 while somebody else entirely could afford triple figures.