Bitcoin is worth over one trillion dollars. China is a criminal regime that likes to steal things . They don't have to "love" Bitcoin in order to try to steal from it, or hold it hostage, etc.
China's current policy with respect to Bitcoin is to forbid their banks from holding it as an asset on their balance sheets. If your plan was to screw around with Bitcoin, that's the... first thing you would do--get your country's banks out of the way of the damage.
1. Yeah, pretty simple if you're willing to spend enough.
2. What technical "implications" it's a 51% attack, it happened before on a number of coins, we have the precedent
3. Zero
4. A big dive followed by a migration to the next best coin, and the revelation that the majority is interested in the returns now the coin
5. You're overreacting, nobody would really give a damn, 1.5T in market cap doesn't mean 1.5T in wealth for the US, even now at least 70 billion out of those are locked in Satoshi's wallets, more are lost, a shitton is held by other people in other countries including China, as for rattling the world economy, common...Bitcoin lost 3 years ago 1 trillion in market cap and it wasn't the end of the world.
I pretty much agree with all of that. The point about this not being a major geopolitical event is well-taken: that's both a reason China would do this (because they could score a cool $1T in winnings from their crime) and also a reason they would not do this (if the effect would be negligible, then why even do it).
So I agree that the actual affect on things wouldn't cause a major disruption, the "terrorism effect" could potentially give them some reason to do it (maybe in concert with a bunch of other things as a lead up to invading Taiwan).
I get that, but they would too, and they'd probably have a careful plan about what they'd do in a careful sequence. For starters, they would probably work to hide the fact that they had control of a majority of servers. This wouldn't be very hard to do: they could have control of major US miners right now and we wouldn't necessarily know.