My thinking is very simple: Bitcoin is so expensive because no one in the world can stop or block transactions, freeze coins, and so on. This is a feature of the protocol. Developers can push forks that violate decentralization, but miners won't accept it. The coin's price will collapse, and miners will go bankrupt. I don't see the point in wasting huge amounts of electricity on a centralized protocol.
Developer can create forks or clients that weaken the decentralization principle or add more centralized control. Bitcoin consensus is not determined by developers but by miners, node operators, exchanges, businesses, and ultimately the market, which rules are economically valuable If miners try to implement a fork that breaks censorship resistance or confiscation resistance, the market will likely reject the chain economically, user confidence will decrease, demand will collapse, and miners will suffer the most from the decline in the value of the coin Bitcoin mining is economically viable because people see it as a politically neutral, censorship-resistant, and unregulated network. If these features are removed, there is no longer any justification for running proof-of-work, which consumes so much electricity. Because a centralized system can be operated much more cost-effectively with a simple database.
Let's look at the economic aspect. No one in the world except the US can change the Bitcoin protocol. Bitcoin is integrated into the US economy, people and companies pay taxes, and investment funds use this asset. And suddenly someone decides to change the consensus rules. Not all miners are located in the US, and it will be very difficult to force other miners to accept the consensus.
Bitcoin’s rules cannot be changed unilaterally. Bitcoin’s power comes from its decentralized consensus. Developer can propose code, but the final decision depends on the collective acceptance of node operators, miners, exchanges, businesses and users. Bitcoin is deeply embedded in the U.S. Economy through ETF investment funds tax revenues, and corporate holdings. Therore, any change that would compromise the neutrality or security of the network would be economically costly. Not all miners or nodes are located in any one country. If one party tries to impose controversial rules, other participants around the world can continue to operate the chain while maintaining the old consensus. Bitcoin’s history has shown that the market ultimately favors the chain that is more decentralized, secure, and predictable.
You're right that miners, exchanges, bridges, and other market participants profit from commissions for their activities. These market participants don't benefit from disrupting the system.
The biggest risks now could come from the US government, but Trump, on the contrary, wants the US to become the world's leading cryptocurrency industry.
However, the quantum threat to Bitcoin remains relevant.
