woodMiner on Nostr: Personally, I don't think price action is a valid reason to make these changes. Lots ...

Personally, I don't think price action is a valid reason to make these changes. Lots of people and institutions would get rekt if over leveredged and we'd come out stronger, no?

From a game theory angle, let's look at me, an economic node. Albeit a small one, but probably somewhat indicative of other vendors around the world producing value and trading it for sats.

If the at risk coins are stolen and flood the market then for the period of time while price is suppressed I trade my goods for more sats. I don't see the incentive to switch if it comes down to a hard fork. I think people like me are "sticky" to our current node implementations and individually we may seem insignificant we are definitely here in the world creating value and storing it in sats. Cumulatively we're worth something.

So we would still be here, doing lots of small transactions which would generate fees. Lots of small sat transactions are more valuable to miners than a few big ones if everybody is paying the same fee rate. This, plus the incentive to mine the quantum stolen coins for what would likely be juicy fees makes me think that more miners would choose the original (non-frozen) chain.