The truth is that the everyday user gets full control over the law of their currency simply by running a full node. Your node will reject any transactions that do not comply with the rules of your node.
The soveirgnty of bitcoin comes from knowing that the devs can't force an update upon you or the network, if you do not consent you can always reject the change.
This is exactly their point. This applies to everyone and all organizational entities.
Think some underestimate firstmover advantage and end-user inertia.
This is a common misconception about bitcoin. Every single node on the network validates every single block, not just miners.
Being able to fake blocks isn't significantly more useful than being able to double spend. I don't see why that would be the tipping point.
The reason you don't see these attacks is that they are difficult and very expensive and they would ruin the value of the coin so you can't even profit off it.
You still have freedom to pick the rules to a small degree though - you choose which blockchain to use. Don't like bitcoin? Try bitcoin cash/ethereum/ethereum classic/litecoin/dogecoin/Monero/siacoin/decred/etc etc.
A common misconception is that miners can pick the rules, but they can't. They can only choose to enforce additional rules (which is powerful), they can't ever violate the original rules.
No man is an island, unless he wants to completely devalue his bitcoin.
It is really no different than the government fining you for disobedience.
There are philosophical theoretical arguments against this, not pragmatic ones.
Bitcoin was made with the idea that a 51% attack would be unlikely and unfeasible; as long as that holds, I'm not sure what value your comparison has. You might as well make a comparison to any other possible disaster. ("A solar flare is a form of state governance that will destroy the value of your coins...")
Not exactly end of Bitcoin danger, is it?
That already has happened which is why people forked. You can live in denial of that fact if you wish but a minority "lost" the "vote" and forked Bitcoin.
The BTH/SegWit2X fiasco shows Bitcoin isn't "more" decentralized than an oligopoly, an oligarchy, or a plutocracy.
> Bitcoin was made with the idea that a 51% attack would be unlikely and unfeasible; as long as that holds, I'm not sure what value your comparison has. You might as well make a comparison to any other possible disaster. ("A solar flare is a form of state governance that will destroy the value of your coins...")
The fact pro-bitcoin people swear up and down that isn't the case doesn't change the fact that they are effectively the Bitcoin state and that 2-3 of them + a number of smaller people can effectively "vote" to pass "laws" that are enforced against your BTC regardless of your wishes.
Simply because they don't outright steal your BTC doesn't change the fact you have to comply to retain the value of your BTC.
Sure a government might do that, but they could point a gun to every full node owners head and tell them to stop it just like China did. It would also be much cheaper.
Step 2: use this power to force enough transactions to make yourself rich enough to keep 51% power indefinitely
Step 3: profit
There used to be 100+ years ago such as gold and silver coins where if you were able to remove them from Country A to Country B, then Country A could no longer enforce such financial penalties against you. This is what many of the cryptocoins _wanted_ to be.
It needs to be a hard currency that leaves you immune to monetary policy and fines unless you are physically within the jurisdiction of the country.