These things are called CRYPTOcurrencies for a reason. They are NOT based on trust and are SUPPOSED to be attacked.
Very good point.
I disagree with this.
1) 51% attack really doesn't have to do with the 'crypto' aspect of the currency.
2) Supposed to be attacked when? On day one? On day 365? On the currency's 10th year anniversary? If people are "supposed to" be attacking it from day one, none of these currencies would have ever gotten off the ground. Bitcoin would've been forked hundreds of times if it was "supposed to" be 51% attacked.
3) Where do you get "supposed to" from anyway? Is that what a person's duty is? They are supposed to attack others' work? There's quite a big difference between attacking to improve a currency and attacking to be a dick and destroy it.
4) Not based on trust? You don't trust the open-source nature of the code or the math behind it or what? I'm not sure I understand this. I'm also not sure how I follow the logic that "not based on trust" leads to "supposed to be attacked."