> Tom Bombadil Is the Most Intelligent Character in Lord of the Rings
> 
> Tom Bombadil believed that the Sauron problem would work itself out on its own
> eventually and saw no need to concern himself with the immediate problems of
> Middle Earth. 

It's been a while since I really dorked out on Middle Earth, but I believe Tom
Bombadil was of the class of moderately-powered exiled-from-heaven spirits as
Sauron, so he had less to fear from Sauron than the mostly-powerless elves,
dwarves, and men who would've come under Sauron's dominion.

In other words, Bombadil had nothing at stake.  It's easy to be nonchalant when
you have nothing at stake.

> A fork should not be something for an investor to get worked up about. 

In his book Zero to One, Peter Thiel takes quite a bit about how highly
profitable companies do their best to avoid competition, especially close
competition, so I can only imagine what Apple investors would think upon
waking tomorrow morning and discovering that the highest market cap company in
the world had split right down the middle into Red Apple and Green Apple---two
companies that are near perfect competitors with each other.

That's what happens in a fork: we have two networks that are extremely-close
competition.  This is unequivicoably bad for both.

> An investor is automatically diversified on both chains. There is conflict,
> but it does not need to be his conflict. 

It **is** the investor's conflict because *competition is a cost.*  Take
hashrate for example: for as long as both sides of a fork continue, neither
side will have the same amount of proof-of-work security it would have if it
were the only chain.

Take network effect for another example: as long as there are some people who
accept coins only on one side of the work, the overall network effect is
lessened.  Likewise, for everyone who wants to accept coins on both side of the
fork, there is now a greater burden to accepting bitcoins in the first place.

And as a third example, do not forget to consider attacks.  Both sides of the
fork are public networks that are weaker individually than they would be
together and so can suffer more when attacked, to the detriment of the
collective userbase (and investors).

> Eventually one chain will dominate.

I completely agree.  The problem is that chain may not be Bitcoin; it may be an
non-Bitcoin-derived altcoin that was able to keep its house united while our
divided house fell.

> As long as he takes no action, he doesn’t have to worry which it will be. He
> can let them fight until one of them kills the other, knowing that he will
> always have the same fraction of the total.

That presumes that both will survive.  I've never seen animals or people fight
to the death, but I think it is common for the "victor" to die from wounds
sustained in the struggle.

> The investor can gain by choosing correctly but he must also take on risk. He
> can never know for certain who will win, so he should never go all in on one
> side.

If one were to apply this statement to any investment, it would mean that one
should invest in everything, no matter how ridiculous or scammy.

> To the extent that he doesn’t pick sides, his investment is secure.

*Only if both survive.*

> Maybe he will choose correctly this time, but Bitcoin forks can happen at any
> time, so this sort of conflict will happen again and again. If he keeps
> choosing sides, he will eventually make too many wrong choices. 

If Bitcoin forks early and often, with each fork taking a significant amount of
the userbase, then the investor's only mistake will be continuing to hold
bitcoins at all.  If Bitcoin can't maintain a unified economy, then those who
us who seek sound money will have to return to gold.

> An investor must remain unharmed through all of them if he wants to be
> immortal.  He is safely immortal as long as he does not take sides.

True for Tom Bombadil.  False for a fight to the death.

> I don’t know for certain who has the better rules, but they will fight it out
> until one is victorious. 

Or until both die.

> if you do not choose sides, then both sides fight for your glory.  

A glory where you have the same amount of bitcoins you started with but they
are worth nothing because both sides are dead.

> You can watch the superior Bitcoin emerge, which will be
> your gain at no additional risk. 

*Only if both survive.*

> Whoever loses, you win. 

*Only if both survive.*

> You should leave your position of safety only to the extent that you can
> protect your immortality.

You have no safety.  Victory between forks doesn't not mean victory for
Bitcoin.