Well then Bitcoin is insecure, as the old checkpoints were never removed according to your analysis.
Because I've already explained
why the checkpoints are still there, and it has nothing to do with preventing 51% attacks or chain re-orgs. They prevent flooding of low difficulty blocks. See the quote from Pieter Wuille above. Or this one from Greg Maxwell:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7591#issuecomment-188369540it also opens an improbable but now not impossible task of bitcoin blockchain being rewritten back to the genesis block.
Sure. And if someone can rewrite the history of bitcoin back to the genesis block, back to the last checkpoint in 2014, or back to last month, then the outcome is always the same - bitcoin's security model is broken, trust is destroyed, and bitcoin is worthless.
The checkpoints we have are, on average, ~5 months apart. You honestly think if someone rewrote bitcoin history for the last 5 months everyone would shrug their shoulders and say "Well, at least they didn't rewrite more than that!" and carry on as if nothing had happened?
You can't have it both ways ,
on 1 hand they do something valuable and on the other hand they are worthless.
If they are worthless , remove them.
If not, not using more is naive.
You honestly think anything but a major collusion of mining pools could rewrite the last two days.
Which are why rolling checkpoints have value in giving real finality that not even colluding mining pools could harm.
Protecting Bitcoin transaction data should be of paramount concern to all bitcoin users,
but thanks to bitcoiner cultist beliefs it is taboo.
FYI:
If your Father and Mother purchased a house with bitcoin, would you not want it
finality assured,
not at the whim of a 51% attacker from an
indefinite time frame wiping out their purchase.
That is why Satoshi included checkpoints, to make the improbable task an impossible task to protect people.
Failure to recognize that for a bitcoiner cultist false belief puts everyone using bitcoin at unneeded risk.
checkpoints can secure a coin against a 99% attack rewriting anything prior to the checkpoint.
And having a centralized security model, which is effectively what checkpoints are since it puts the decision regarding what is the longest chain in the hands of a small group of developers, is 100% effective against any rewriting attack. Why not just use a bank?
You know so little about checkpoints, if you did some research , you would not be so wrong all the time.
A rolling checkpoint is based on a certain number of blocks passing , say two days worth.
Only the mining or staking determined those block, there is no centralized control, so drop your trigger words and learn.