Well Saki, maybe that it’s the first trust-less and permission-less decentralised digital currency?
Most other “coins” involve trust to 2nd and 3rd parties, are centralised, and have huge apparent backdoors in their coding, thus making them incomparable to Bitcoin. Creating a “superior” to Bitcoin – coin – would require trust by the market and a lot of time to validate its integrity. Bitcoin has already been there, done that, and the only thing that remains for it to prove in the future – is the privacy and scalability features. The hard cap and the halving, ensure its deflationary nature in full contrast to its rival pair FIAT.

| A 51% on Bitcoin now would be prohibitively expensive.

The problem with that Mark, is that you’re talking about a direct 51% attack on Bitcoin. In reality, Bitcoin is under “constant 51% attacks” meaning that there is a plot twist involved – that being all the other junk “coins”, creating their coins out of thin air, pumped and dumped with the aid of dubious exchanges with zero to little liquidy, and then converting their proceeding profits to Bitcoin and consequently FIAT. I like to call it: “a side chain covert 51% attack on Bitcoin”, with Binance being the main attack facilitator, and the added bonus being the flock of sheep that support this.
Human greed at it’s finest!

Not sure what your point is.

A 51% on Bitcoin now would be prohibitively expensive.

Anybody can create a new digital currency that’s “better than Bitcoin” and limit the number of coins. The trick now is market adoption.

At this stage of the game, enough people have agreed that Bitcoin is sound money that it’s achieving escape velocity. Ethereum tried to make a “superior” system and has failed.

From the white paper allegedly written by a Satoshi Nakamoto:

"as long as honest nodes control the most CPU power on the network, they can generate the longest chain and outpace any attackers"

The whole origin story never passed the smell test for me. The backdoor , even if not directly embedded with "invisible ink" in the digital protocols, seems wide open by this statement.

what is unrepeatable about Bitcoin?
why is it the only digital "coin" that can have a "limited in number"?
why can't a digital "coin" be created that is far superior to bitcoin and have a limited number?

Just sayin"…

Bitcoin is nothing but a digital set of rules, that ultimately can be altered should the Core decide to. As it sits, Bitcoin is freedom to the people – and the Nemesis of the banking cartel – but current and past attributes do not guarantee future ones. It’s imperative to keep a close eye on any Core developments, with the main focus being on the privacy development. What is the point if the transactions per block reach mass adoption levels if there is no real privacy?

I will agree with you that in the bottomline it does not matter (much) how Bitcoin came to be and by whom. What does matter however – is whether its decentralised nature is controllable in any form, shape or aspect – that being its reliance on the internet services on a global scale (insert big tech cyberattack). I’m sure we can also agree that should the internet be disrupted on a massive scale (not world wide necessarily, could be just the US or Europe – definitely not China or Nigeria), Bitcoin would plunge by automated AI trading bots – then to probably exponentially recover – but only for the benefit of the few and at the expense of the majority of the people (thank you MSM). Then we can have our mass adoption.

Although I’m a huge fan of the concept of abolishing taxes for the plebs, I can’t help wonder if this is the vehicle that enables TPTB to “erase” and handle their ballooned trillion dollar debt deficits, and reset the world economy onboard the Bitcoin standard (hyper-Bitcoinization). In this (un?)realistic scenario, Bitcoin would have failed on almost all counts it stands by today, especially if there is no privacy involved.

Such moon!