The consensus dead end.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You said that was not possible. Are you sure that old article is wrong?

No, the article isn't wrong, at least from the part you quoted. I'll give you a short answer that may be disliked, but it's true:  If a Bitcoin node changes a consensus rule, it automatically stops being a Bitcoin node. By that, I mean that IF the majority of the nodes decided to switch from 21,000,000 to 42,000,000, they'd stop being the majority.

Note that this is very significant. No one can actually do something to Bitcoin, whether if it's the majority or the minority or all the nodes! There are some rules you have to follow. If you don't, you're not running Bitcoin!

Yes, the chances of switching that 21M cap aren't 0%, obviously. But, the article doesn't mention that if such thing ever happened, Bitcoin wouldn't change. Nodes would simply follow different rules, not the Bitcoin's ones. Thus, there wouldn't be any Bitcoin node running and so on, no Bitcoin.

Will consensus determine how much the transaction fees will be in the future?

The transaction fees don't have to do with the consensus ^(completely). They're calculated by the amount of transactions in the mempool.

Sorry, gotta go. I'll answer the remaining questions when I come back.

Are there transaction fees now?

Of course there are transaction fees right now, and they're really high. At the moment, the median fee is around 225 sats/byte (~$15).

If so, who determined how much they would be?

No one! It's an open market competition. As I said, each block's weight can be up to 1MB. If there's only 1 transaction on the mempool, then the miner could include it without having any fee. You could of course give him a tiny amount just for the incentive. It's on miners' fate if your transaction will be included in a block or not.

Now, consider that if the miners have 100,000 transactions on their mempool, they can't include them into one block and thus they'll have to pick what is the most profitable for them. If 99,000 of the transactions offer 1 sat/byte and 1,000 offer 2 sat/byte, they'll prefer the ones that'll bring them more profit. Same thing would happen if someone broadcasted a transaction that pays 10 precious satoshis per byte. It goes on and on.

Is reaching consensus a difficult thing to achieve? Is there good reason to believe bitcoin will evolve from consensus to adapt well to changes when they are needed?

I can't answer you with certainty about the first one, maybe someone else can, but as for the other question:  There won't be any changes to the consensus. Technical changes may occur to improve Bitcoin, but there won't be any consensus rule changed.

[1713568121]

1713568121

[Metal Brain]

Are you talking about a 51% attack?
I'm not sure what you mean by no bitcoin. Do you mean it would morph into something else or cease to exist?

Do you know which cryptocurrency has the lowest transaction fees? Are they only low because of a low transaction rate and they could get as high as bitcoin if they reached that transaction level? Does all the money from transaction fees go to the miners? Is there no middle man?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Are you talking about a 51% attack?

You should quote a certain part of my message, because it's too long to understand where that question refers to.  No, I'm definitely not talking about a 51% attack.

I'm not sure what you mean by no bitcoin. Do you mean it would morph into something else or cease to exist?

That's a discussion that broaches a lot of people. You'll only read opinions since there is no one who can define what is Bitcoin. I personally define "Bitcoin" a computer program that is compatible with those consensus rules. Any other program that defies them should not be called "Bitcoin".

Do you know which cryptocurrency has the lowest transaction fees?

It depends on what kind of cryptocurrency you wanna know. There are the centralized ones, such as XRP or stable coins, and the decentralized ones that are consisted by a peer-to-peer network. It's obvious that once you have a third party, the fees are much cheaper. That's the price of decentralization.  

Are they only low because of a low transaction rate and they could get as high as bitcoin if they reached that transaction level?

Not all cryptos have maximum block weight equal with 1MB, so no. You shouldn't compare it with Bitcoin. Altcoins offer you a nearly-zero fee, because of the transaction rate. Check monero for example. I haven't seen more than 500 transactions on the mempool. If the entire world started using monero, its median fee would increase. As said by Satoshi, it's an open market competition. Although, comparing to 2009, there aren't any nodes that will process your transactions for free. At least, not that I know any of.  

Is there no middle man?

On Bitcoin there's no middle man, like never. All the transaction fees go straight to the miners.

[Metal Brain]

A 51% attack is unlikely, but if there is less incentive to mine the that could change. Since the burden of incentivizing is going to be increased transfer fees, the already high bitcoin transaction fees will become too high. At some point in time (I'm not sure when since I don't know if doubling the transaction rate will double transaction fees) people will look for a cryptocurrency with lower transaction fees. I think that will be Bitcoin Cash. Litecoin does not limit as much inflation, but that would be my second choice. It can process transactions faster. If reaching consensus proves too difficult for bitcoin to evolve Litecoin could prevail over Bitcoin Cash.

That assessment is based on the transaction fee you told me though. You said it was about $15. Is that for all transactions or is that relative to the amount of the transaction? If it is the latter I might reassess that. If it is the former it is not practical for small transactions. Isn't that a problem?

If the shareholders of the Federal Reserve System (known for hating competition and waging war costing trillions  to protect the petrodollar) decided to invest billions or even trillions to do a 51% attack to sabotage bitcoin and were successful, what is the worst that could happen?

[btc-room101]

of course NSA could crack this stuff all along.

Any proof or is it just the tinfoil hat talking?

Pretty sure that applies to every post this user has ever made.  I don't think I've ever witnessed them utter a word of sense in all 294 posts.

How would I become a part of this consensus?

Help secure the chain.  Most people do that by running a non-mining full node.  You'll then check every block conforms to the consensus rules which your chosen client enforces.  The alternative is to become a miner.  However, mining likely isn't an option unless you have a fairly significant sum of money you don't mind putting at risk, because you'd have to buy specialist hardware and return-on-investment is not guaranteed.

How is the incentive for mining going to be preserved after the coin creation is not enough? Can consensus create more coin for mining incentive? Without mining bitcoin will collapse, right?

Getting off-topic with this part, but the network will run purely on transaction fees after coin emission ceases.

In all of NSA history, the NSA has never made an algo public, where they didn't have the backdoor keys (DES, AES, ... nada one algo every, their entire mission is to tell corporate USA how to encrypt, but only strong enough so that the un-educated can't break ).

Both SECP256k1, and SHA256 are NSA, they are the backbone of BITCOIN

Now of course, the entire reason the BITCOIN PONZI scam has continued for 10+ Years, is that wink-wink, nod-nod, everybody knows the emperor has no clothes, but the prices continues to rise

This is common human trait, but when bitcoin does go down, then the facts will become common knowledge

SHA-256 is the hash, or trap-door function that is used for mining, and obfuscation of public-keys

Secp256k1 is the elliptic-curve used by bitcoin to generate public-keys, from private-keys, and message verification used in transactions.

The so called block-chain, is just what we call a linked-list in computer science, 70 year old tech nowadays.

...

Consensus in BITCOIN comes form the 51% rule in the Satoshi white-paper, it says' that so long 51% or more of the miners are running the same software, then there is consensus, of course if +51% collude, then fairness is lost. China OWNS +67% of all bitcoin mining, China could order all bitcoin miners in China anytime they wish to all run the same software, supplied by the CCP-PBOC. This will happen in time. China also make +90% of all ASIC-GPU miners on earth, which all calls home, thus in reality CHINA owns all crypto mining on earth.

Lot's people all over the world run node, and full-nodes, which process the block-chain. Consensus rules are applied here to follow the rules, the assumption is that +51% of those running a full-node, are using the same software consensus rules.

Most important is that MINERS make BLOCKS, thus they're really in charge of the 'consensus', because they decide what goes into the block, thus the miners in CHINA could easily black-list any address, where the IMF doesn't have a KYC for that high-value address.

Because CHINA has had more than 51% of the mining for years, it can be said that consensus is an urban myth propagated by pumpers and bullshitters. Everybody knows CHINA owns BITCOIN, but so long as they're getting rich, it goes un-said. But be certain when the plug is pulled, all our HODL-ers will become "China Haters" over-night.

[Wind_FURY]

A 51% attack is unlikely, but if there is less incentive to mine the that could change. Since the burden of incentivizing is going to be increased transfer fees, the already high bitcoin transaction fees will become too high. At some point in time (I'm not sure when since I don't know if doubling the transaction rate will double transaction fees) people will look for a cryptocurrency with lower transaction fees. I think that will be Bitcoin Cash. Litecoin does not limit as much inflation, but that would be my second choice. It can process transactions faster. If reaching consensus proves too difficult for bitcoin to evolve Litecoin could prevail over Bitcoin Cash.

That assessment is based on the transaction fee you told me though. You said it was about $15. Is that for all transactions or is that relative to the amount of the transaction? If it is the latter I might reassess that. If it is the former it is not practical for small transactions. Isn't that a problem?

The design-decisions made by the Bitcoin Cash developers, to make blocks bigger, centralize the network, to maintain lower fees will be self-defeating. Block rewards are going to zero, and blockchain networks creating big blocks are killing POW blockchains main value-proposition. Censorship resistance.

If the shareholders of the Federal Reserve System (known for hating competition and waging war costing trillions  to protect the petrodollar) decided to invest billions or even trillions to do a 51% attack to sabotage bitcoin and were successful, what is the worst that could happen?

Game Theory. The Federal Reserve System would learn that there’s more incentive to be honest, and be rewarded in Bitcoin.

[BlackHatCoiner]

A 51% attack is unlikely, but if there is less incentive to mine the that could change.

This is not entirely true. If the reward from my work isn't enough to provide me profit then I'll stop mining. But, if many people do that then the difficulty will decrease and this will result on making mining more profitable for me. Thus, it turns out that the total units of bitcoins you're rewarded don't have to do with your profit. We may see huge fluctuations of difficulty in the future. Recently, if I'm not mistaken, around 20% of the total power consumption for mining was lost. Cheers to the miners that will work within the next difficulty adjustment's period.

As I said, the fee is based on the amount of transactions in the mempool. Whether the reward gave 50 BTC or 0 BTC, the current transaction median fee would be the same.

At some point in time (I'm not sure when since I don't know if doubling the transaction rate will double transaction fees) people will look for a cryptocurrency with lower transaction fees.

Of course and they will. The cryptocurrencies you mentioned (BCH & LTC) are much more useful if you want to broadcast enormous transactions with low fees. You should consider, though, that if many people think same-like, their usefulness will be ruined.

Litecoin does not limit as much inflation, but that would be my second choice. It can process transactions faster. If reaching consensus proves too difficult for bitcoin to evolve Litecoin could prevail over Bitcoin Cash.

This opens another discussion, again. There are surely altcoins that process transactions faster, such as Litecoin with 2.5 minutes per block. The fact that someone chose 10 minutes back in 2009 isn't a non-sense randomly-made decision.

If the shareholders of the Federal Reserve System (known for hating competition and waging war costing trillions  to protect the petrodollar) decided to invest billions or even trillions to do a 51% attack to sabotage bitcoin and were successful, what is the worst that could happen?

If they invested all that fortune on performing such powerful attack, then they could stop Bitcoin. It's pretty simple if they just extend the chain with empty blocks. But it's not beneficial for them! Despite the cost of the miners that should work consecutively, they should do that for every altcoin existing! As said by Wind_FURY it's a game theory and they ought to play by the rules. It'd be better for them if they helped the network and got rewarded in bitcoins.

[Metal Brain]

"This opens another discussion, again. There are surely altcoins that process transactions faster, such as Litecoin with 2.5 minutes per block. The fact that someone chose 10 minutes back in 2009 isn't a non-sense randomly-made decision."

What is the advantage to choosing 10 minutes instead of a faster rate?

I don't think you understand what is beneficial to central bankers. It is beneficial to sabotage Bitcoin even if it costs them billions they will never recover. Destroying competition by wasting billions is not a waste if preserving the dominance of the US dollar will insure 100's of Trillions will keep rolling in from the inflation tax. You need to remember the US dollar is the world reserve currency. They are taxing 80% of the world with inflation!

A previous poster on here said the NSA created the backbone of the bitcoin network with backdoor vulnerabilities. Perhaps they don't need to go through the expense of a 51% attack. They can pull the plug whenever they want. Heck, the establishment probably created it and own most of the bitcoin and are just doing a big pump and dump scheme.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Alright, let's see.

What is the advantage to choosing 10 minutes instead of a faster rate?

If the consensus rule was 5 minutes between blocks, then currently the blockchain would be weighting much more than now, around the double amount. For example, if it was 1 minute instead of 10 and each block weighted 1MB, just like now, then the blockchain would be around 3 TBs (assuming that most of the blocks aren't empty).

— So what, BlackHatCoiner? Does it matter the size of the blockchain?

Yes it does. The heaviest the chain, the hardest it is to retain the decentralization. Compared to every other altcoin, Bitcoin is the "most decentralized one". What I mean by that:  It has, by far, the most offered-distributed effort. This is why I quoted-marked that little part. You can either say that something is centralized or decentralized, but this is how I measure the decentralization.

You need to remember the US dollar is the world reserve currency. They are taxing 80% of the world with inflation!

I'm pretty sure that "they" have much better solutions. You just have to understand what you're attacking. In this case, I wouldn't say that going against Bitcoin is the first thing on their list. As for the quoted part, what does it have to do? You don't really believe that Bitcoin will replace dollar's position, do you?

A previous poster on here said the NSA created the backbone of the bitcoin network with backdoor vulnerabilities. Perhaps they don't need to go through the expense of a 51% attack. They can pull the plug whenever they want. Heck, the establishment probably created it and own most of the bitcoin and are just doing a big pump and dump scheme.

Yes, the hash function, Bitcoin uses, was firstly introduced by NSA. If you understand the way a hash function works, you can gently defy that previous poster's propaganda spread.

[nullius]

Bitcoin as Global Truth

I should expand on something that I said earlier:

The Bitcoin ledger is a single global truth.

The phrase “global truth” was not intended as an ideological statement.  A monetary system perforce requires that if Alice makes two transactions doubly-spending the same coin to Bob and to Charlie, then there must emerge a single global truth about who gets the money.  Otherwise, the money is worthless:  Who wants money that 99.9% of people believe you have, and 0.1% of people believe really belongs to someone else?

A useful lay definition:  The Bitcoin consensus is a single global truth of who has what money at each point in time.  The truth must be absolutist, with zero tolerance for any deviations:  Either Bob has the coin, or Charlie has the coin—either-or, with no room for any disagreement.

Bitcoin achieves a single, global, unanimous Consensus of absolute Truth, even in the face of Byzantine faults—although it does so probabilistically.  In the above example, as the number of confirmations of the winning transaction increases, the probability approaches 1 that absolutely 100% of honest nodes will reach the same conclusion about who has the coin—either Bob, or Charlie.  And each additional confirmation exponentially increases the security of this automagical unanimous agreement.  Satoshi knew this; see §11 of the Bitcoin whitepaper.

In the context of Bitcoin, that is the meaning of “consensus”.  And...

Mutually untrusting nodes agree on this one truth, with no central authority to call the shots or enforce rules.

Bitcoin reaches this Truth with no central authority:  Nobody in the world has an override button for ruling in favour of Charlie over Bob, or vice versa.

There is hereby a failure of human language usage:  The word “consensus” is overloaded.

In Bitcoin, the word “consensus” has the very specific technical meaning.  It does not refer to an agreement amongst humans, as in colloquial usage.  Rather, it denotes the resolution of a synchronized state in a distributed system.[...]

In Bitcoin, the consensus means that all nodes arrive at the exact same conclusions about the current global state of the blockchain ledger:  The set of valid transactions that exist, the meaning of each of those transactions, and the order of those transactions.

You are of course right, the usage of the word in this thread is a bit ambiguous/imprecise, mixing the "colloquial" with the "technical" meaning, but I think nevertheless the discussion here has to do with consensus.

Much mischief is done by the ambiguity of overloaded words.  Another example is “entropy”.  The word “entropy” has multiple distinct technical meanings in multiple fields, and multiple distinct meanings within the fields related to cryptography; if you confuse different types of “entropy”, then you will break your random number generator.

You understand the distinction here, but I think I really need to drive the point home for the public benefit:

In the context of Bitcoin, “consensus” is not how people agree to the rules, but how nodes agree on a global state based on the rules that everyone already agreed to.  This is not simply my opinion:  It is the meaning of the word “consensus” in the context of distributed systems architecture.

Compare and contrast the problem formulation in this excellent paper:

Problem definition

The classic formulation of consensus considers how to decide upon a single value in a distributed system.  This seemingly simple problem is made non-trivial by the weak assumptions made about the underlying system: we assume only that the algorithm is correctly executed (i.e., the non-Byzantine model).  We do not assume that participants are either reliable or synchronous.  Participants may operate at arbitrary speeds and messages may be arbitrarily delayed.

We consider systems comprised of two types of participant: servers, which store the value, and clients, which read/write the value.  Clients take as input a value to be written and produce as output the value decided by the system.  Messages may only be exchanged between clients and servers and we assume that the set of participants, servers and clients, is fixed and known to the clients.

An algorithm solves consensus if it satisfies the following three requirements:

• Non-triviality.  All output values must have been the input value of a client.
• Agreement.  All clients that output a value must output the same value.
• Progress.  All clients must eventually output a value if the system is reliable and synchronous for a sufficient period.

The words “servers” and “clients” must be adapted to the context of a P2P network.  The portions highlighted in pink do not apply to Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is designed on the Byzantine model.  Also, it arguably does not guarantee progress.

The "global state" of the blockchain can be altered only following the strict rules of the Bitcoin protocol.  [...]

Indeed.

But maybe here we shouldn't talk about "the consensus" but about "protocol rules" or "consensus rules", or "how consensus rules are established".

Good idea.

A previous poster on here said the NSA created the backbone of the bitcoin network with backdoor vulnerabilities. Perhaps they don't need to go through the expense of a 51% attack. They can pull the plug whenever they want. Heck, the establishment probably created it and own most of the bitcoin and are just doing a big pump and dump scheme.

Are you sure that “a previous poster” isn’t you? 

You created your account after that “previous poster’s” first crap on this thread had been ignored for almost two days.  You bumped it, then started spreading more crap in the guise of asking questions.  You have only posted on this thread.  Now, you are not-so-subtly calling attention to utter crap from “a previous poster”—and in the same breath, you have overtly started to parrot the “previous poster’s” party line.  I think that I can call this one.

of course NSA could crack this stuff all along.

Any proof or is it just the tinfoil hat talking?

Pretty sure that applies to every post this user has ever made.  I don't think I've ever witnessed them utter a word of sense in all 294 posts.

Pretty sure he’s trolling.  Like posting a comment about Microsoft Linux on Slashdot in 1999, and waiting for a dozen people to correct that in gruesome detail.

Or on second thought, he looks like a scammer...

<edit>

I should have checked his trust page before I wrote all of this (instead of afterwards, when I went to tag him).

Trust summary for btc-room101

This user recently woke up from a long period of inactivity.

Trusted feedback

gmaxwell

2018-11-25

Gibberish about key cracking appears to be bait for privately distributed malware. Do not run programs from this person.

</edit>

Anyway, he predicted that SHA-256 would be broken by 2020; so take his nonsense for what it’s worth.  🗑️

quantum-computers are way off, but 2^256 will be cracked soon with off the shelf hw.

The so called block-chain, is just what we call a linked-list in computer science, 70 year old tech nowadays.

Yup, grade F transparent troll.  Yawn.  He may have better luck spreading rumours that nullius works for the NSA.

(From my desk in Fort Meade.)

[Wind_FURY]

"This opens another discussion, again. There are surely altcoins that process transactions faster, such as Litecoin with 2.5 minutes per block. The fact that someone chose 10 minutes back in 2009 isn't a non-sense randomly-made decision."

What is the advantage to choosing 10 minutes instead of a faster rate?

What advantage does the shorter durations between blocks if it is less secure than Bitcoin? I don’t know the exact calculation, but one confirmation is worth how many confirmations in Litecoin? It’s about the assurances of settlement, not speed.

I don't think you understand what is beneficial to central bankers. It is beneficial to sabotage Bitcoin even if it costs them billions they will never recover. Destroying competition by wasting billions is not a waste if preserving the dominance of the US dollar will insure 100's of Trillions will keep rolling in from the inflation tax. You need to remember the US dollar is the world reserve currency. They are taxing 80% of the world with inflation!

You say sabotage, but the Core developers have made the most conservative design-decisions. Hard forking to bigger blocks, and risking decentralization/security is the sabotage.

A previous poster on here said the NSA created the backbone of the bitcoin network with backdoor vulnerabilities. Perhaps they don't need to go through the expense of a 51% attack. They can pull the plug whenever they want. Heck, the establishment probably created it and own most of the bitcoin and are just doing a big pump and dump scheme.

LAUGHABLE FUD.

[Metal Brain]

Are you claiming a 51% attack cannot result in double spending? There are other concerns as well.

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/bitcoin/bitcoin-worst-case-scenarios-14467541

This forum seems to be plagued with "group think" and it is being enforced with censorship. I created a thread called "High transaction fees and how it could limit the growth of Bitcoin and it was deleted. Seems that one thread was a threat to peoples "confirmation bias".

This is just a confirmation bias support group and it is terrified of info about high transaction fees. That is the real fud.

[Wind_FURY]

Are you claiming a 51% attack cannot result in double spending? There are other concerns as well.

I am claiming that it isn’t that simple, and it’s very impossible for Bitcoin with the current hasing power that’s securing it. How much would a bad-actor spend for one double spend, then get pushed out of the network? The bad-actors will be rewarded with Bitcoin if they were honest.

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/bitcoin/bitcoin-worst-case-scenarios-14467541

This forum seems to be plagued with "group think" and it is being enforced with censorship. I created a thread called "High transaction fees and how it could limit the growth of Bitcoin and it was deleted. Seems that one thread was a threat to peoples "confirmation bias".

This is just a confirmation bias support group and it is terrified of info about high transaction fees. That is the real fud.

Then prove your 51% attack in practice.

[Metal Brain]

It would destroy confidence in Bitcoin and that is enough. If you are talking about a hard fork say so. No need to beat around the bush.

The rising transaction fees are a problem. It is an effective limit on growth in the long term. Small transactions are already impractical. People will turn to Bitcoin Cash eventually. A 51% attack on Bitcoin isn't really necessary. Bitcoin will become weighted down by it's own increasing transaction fees. Fine for buying a Tesla, but anything less than $200 is just plain stupid. Might as well use your Mastercard. It will save you money.

Bitcoin is over rated.

[pooya87]

People will turn to Bitcoin Cash eventually.

Alternative to bitcoin (a decentralized currency with immutable blockchain) is not bitcoin cash (a centralized garbage with a mutable blockchain). Not to mention that it is the exact copy of bitcoin that suffers from the same scaling issues.
If people some day turn away from bitcoin they will seek an actual alternative that provides them with the same characteristics such as being decentralized, immutable and have a better scaling tactic.

Might as well use your Mastercard. It will save you money.

If you think the only concern when it comes to using bitcoin versus mastercard is the fees then discussing things further with you is pointless.

[Wind_FURY]

It would destroy confidence in Bitcoin and that is enough. If you are talking about a hard fork say so. No need to beat around the bush.

Destroy what? The total Hashing Power of Bitcoin assures that it’s the network/protocol safest to HODL value.

The rising transaction fees are a problem. It is an effective limit on growth in the long term. Small transactions are already impractical. People will turn to Bitcoin Cash eventually. A 51% attack on Bitcoin isn't really necessary. Bitcoin will become weighted down by it's own increasing transaction fees. Fine for buying a Tesla, but anything less than $200 is just plain stupid. Might as well use your Mastercard. It will save you money.

I HOPE Bitcoin Cash WILL have more than Bitcoin’s daily transactions to teach, and prove in practice, how flawed the design decisions were made.

Bitcoin is over rated.

Your opinon, but it chugs along and will live longer than Bitcoin Cash, simply because of the choices made by the developers.

[Metal Brain]

NANO does not limit inflation like Bitcoin Cash does. Another poster here seems to think decentralization is all good, but that may make reaching consensus more difficult and be a problem. Bitcoin Cash is better able to evolve from consensus without that difficulty. Despite Bitcoin Cash's being less decentralized no major security problems have been found to prove it is a problem in the short term. The long term future of all decentralized coin is in question in reality.
If decentralization is so important why is nobody mentioning Cardano? Cardano claims to be the most decentralized coin, contrary to what Black hat stated. Is it a false claim or is Bitcoin not really the most decentralized coin?

[pooya87]

Another poster here seems to think decentralization is all good, but that may make reaching consensus more difficult and be a problem.

We already have centralized currencies that are working A LOT better then centralized cryptocurrencies. The existence of a centralized cryptocurrency makes no sense.

Bitcoin Cash is better able to evolve from consensus without that difficulty.

So does PayPal and VISA and ...

Despite Bitcoin Cash's being less decentralized no major security problems have been found to prove it is a problem in the short term.

3 major security flaws:
EDA: difficulty manipulation
Fork at will multiple times to change the protocol without caring what everyone else thinks
Successful 51% attacks to reverse blocks that the centralized controllers of bcash didn't like.

If decentralization is so important why is nobody mentioning Cardano?

This is not a coin comparison topic but Cardano also has a lot of traces of centralization. Starting from its ICO-premine.

[philipma1957]

NANO does not limit inflation like Bitcoin Cash does.

It's only example, obviously there are downside which i didn't mention.

Another poster here seems to think decentralization is all good, but that may make reaching consensus more difficult and be a problem.

I agree, it's trade off. But people are free to choose between coin with more decentralization or easier consensus.

Or inflationary such as DOGE vs Noninflationary BTC

at OP I have a sticky on methods that can be used to create high fees for BTC

BTC has simply morphed into a 10000 USD T-Bill it is a store of value.
Possibly due to the fact that the mining of golden Astroids is technically feasible.
Thus gold may become very common more like Copper.

So anyone with large gold reserves and steady income coming in may want to divest into BTC to store large wealth.

DOGE can handle some aspects of being a dollar bill so to speak. Its inflationary nature is much like that of a Dollar bill. It does 10 blocks in ten minutes which allows for it to handle 10x the transactions that BTC can handle (on the blockchain)
It is very well protected by hard iron gear.

To me BTC will simple not move small numbers on the blockchain. Yeah some multiple layers will allow for it to move so to speak but it won't be a 'true' cash.  Much like you do not go into a grocery store with a 10,000 dollar t-bill or a 10,000 dollar savings bond.

It is obvious that others have caught on to moving wealth with Doge. As it is now a 31 cent coin.
It does not half and is more like the Dollar bill than BTC is.

[tromp]

DOGE can handle some aspects of being a dollar bill so to speak. Its inflationary nature is much like that of a Dollar bill.

It's very different from fiat, as it is disinflationary. And not that much different from Bitcoin, as I argue in

https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153

It just has a much slower emission, taking 81 years to reach 1% inflation, compared to 16 years with Bitcoin.