How could they have eliminated that risk?

But you had to get to know him to realize what he was. To most people, he was just a regular guy, easy going, friendly, always willing to help.

He was also a libertarian, and the concept of bitcoin must have been very appealing to him.

And inventing "Satoshi" as the front man is just the prankish thing he'd do, as he had quite a sense of humor.

I regret not getting to know him better, though I don't think he found me very interesting.

My money's on Hal.

> if setting prices independently from costs is OK, then monopolies are good. Because market competition is lauded for preventing exactly that.

Your premise does not lead to your conclusion. It doesn't make any sense.

The nuance is throughout the SO anti-trust trial, SO was losing market share.

SO's main method of growing was to buy out competitors, and made them rich with SO stock.

I've tried emulating those movements, and just look like Bullwinkle.

It's the result of a lifetime of ballet dancing. Probably 10,000 hours, at least.

I was just in awe.

I never wrote anything resembling that fabrication, and it doesn't follow from your reply, either.

Nor did Rockefeller eliminate his competitors. He never got more than a 90% market share. SO was not tried for being a monopoly, it was tried for trying to create one.

SO's market share sank during the trial, as Rockefeller's competitors learned how to compete with him.

See "Titan" by Chernow.

> With enough scale, a near-monopoly can provide irrational predatory pricing long enough make competitors insolvent.

The reason this doesn't work is if X has 10 times the market share of Y, if X wants to lose money to hurt Y, X loses 10 times the money that Y loses. I.e. the larger the market share of X is, the proportionately more money is lost trying to undercut Y.