If it's that cheap then the FBI could take it over with a 51% attack with the change they find in their couch--if they haven't already and simply haven't told us (which really wouldn't surprise me). Bitcoin's resistance to takeover is a pure architectural tradeoff with performance.
51% attack cost is not based on transaction fees
and this type of attack has higher possibility in Bitcoin because it's mining operation is
WAY less decentralized.
It's indirectly connected in that higher transaction rates indicate more centralization and/or a PoS model instead of a PoW model, which is easier to attack.
Anyhow, I'm certainly not going to argue with a
Monero Maximalist 
.
The original crypto community hated the government, and hates any concept of regulations. They started their movement as explicitly "anti-government". Average consumers love regulations and government protections because it makes things safe for them without needing to think about it.
The original crypto community focused on changing the world and ending the idea of central banks and central governments. Average consumers want their Social Security check to come when they retire, and they like the protection from crime their government gives them.
The original crypto community fought against things like centralized stores of your assets--not your keys, not your coins, they said. Average consumers want their wealth to be stored in a financial institution, because they want to pay somebody else to guard it, not hide it on their own person.
I enjoyed reading everything up there including your unjustified prediction about market cap in the next ten years but you begin to missed it when you involved government. Bitcoin and it developers did not publicly declare fight against government. We can not refute the fact that some bitcoin enthusiasts hold anti government view but bitcoin itself is neutral.
I would love that to be true, and I think it's necessary for the overall market to get to $15T. But you don't have to go any further than even this very
thread to see that anti-government is a core belief among many in the community.
It is just like an alternative to government financial system for those that value their financial privacy. It's high time we stop this unnecessary competition and comparison.
See, this is the kind of thinking I'm talking about that will
not get us to $15T. Consumers do not want a "alternative financial system"--they want a make a profit from their speculation,
which is almost all Bitcoin and every other digital currency means to them right now.
And as I've said many times here, there is a huge difference between the sort of
privacy offered by a reputable VPN like NordVPN, and the
government-proof privacy promised by cryptos (a promise broken by Bitcoin and only really available from Monero and a few others like it).
Most people don't want to fight their government. Most people don't need Monero or something like it that protects them
even if they have committed a crime. Most people want to pay their taxes and for their to be no trouble with the police.
And most people don't want to deal with
companies and/or individuals that are under investigation by one or more governments for money laundering.
It is a
false alternative to assert that if something can be tracked by a government with a valid legal inquiry, it means it is "not private" for the purposes of 99% of consumers. Consumers don't need this anti-government stuff, they just want to be safe from criminals, marketers, and their fellow citizens.
Most consumers actually
trust their government and
need them to protect them from criminals. This is a foreign idea in much of the Bitcoin/crypto universe, who see the government as the
enemy (except, I guess, when the government protects from being attacks by robbers).
The road to $15T goes through average consumers who think differently than much of the crypto community thinks today.
