There's a few things that are moving in our favor. The first is if this is a nation state issue then we have a multitude of other nations playing in the same game to help offset each other to a degree. As Bitcoin continues it's consumption of capital markets these legacy markets influence will continue to wane.
As for relief against a known threat attacker, the competing fork could theoretically just be a fork that applies a consensus rule that known Satoshi coins can never be spent. This would mean the Satoshi funds, or potentially a wider network of early actors that are somehow known to be malicious actors, couldn't spend their "people's side" fork coins to decrease the network value + pump pedo chain.
Replies (2)
regarding satoshi’s coins, i don’t think i would be able to support making anyone’s coins unspendable. regardless of the reason, it sets a precedent that breaks my fundamental view of why i hold bitcoin… who will decide in the future what is a valid reason to make coins unspendable
In principle I agree but if it came out that their was a malicious stake attack, I'd pray there'd be economic support for a multi-chain path that included at least one with unspendable coins for the malicious attacker. That'd would at least give a chain where the malicious stake would have a hard time influencing price in a negative way. While I might not support it by buying additional stake on that chain I'd likely hodl on that chain to reduce the malicious actors ability to influence it.
