Quote from: Metal Brain on April 21, 2021, 09:30:14 PM

A 51% attack is unlikely, but if there is less incentive to mine the that could change.

This is not entirely true. If the reward from my work isn't enough to provide me profit then I'll stop mining. But, if many people do that then the difficulty will decrease and this will result on making mining more profitable for me. Thus, it turns out that the total units of bitcoins you're rewarded don't have to do with your profit. We may see huge fluctuations of difficulty in the future. Recently, if I'm not mistaken, around 20% of the total power consumption for mining was lost. Cheers to the miners that will work within the next difficulty adjustment's period.

As I said, the fee is based on the amount of transactions in the mempool. Whether the reward gave 50 BTC or 0 BTC, the current transaction median fee would be the same.

Quote from: Metal Brain on April 21, 2021, 09:30:14 PM

At some point in time (I'm not sure when since I don't know if doubling the transaction rate will double transaction fees) people will look for a cryptocurrency with lower transaction fees.

Of course and they will. The cryptocurrencies you mentioned (BCH & LTC) are much more useful if you want to broadcast enormous transactions with low fees. You should consider, though, that if many people think same-like, their usefulness will be ruined.

Quote from: Metal Brain on April 21, 2021, 09:30:14 PM

Litecoin does not limit as much inflation, but that would be my second choice. It can process transactions faster. If reaching consensus proves too difficult for bitcoin to evolve Litecoin could prevail over Bitcoin Cash.

This opens another discussion, again. There are surely altcoins that process transactions faster, such as Litecoin with 2.5 minutes per block. The fact that someone chose 10 minutes back in 2009 isn't a non-sense randomly-made decision.

Quote from: Metal Brain on April 21, 2021, 09:30:14 PM

If the shareholders of the Federal Reserve System (known for hating competition and waging war costing trillions to protect the petrodollar) decided to invest billions or even trillions to do a 51% attack to sabotage bitcoin and were successful, what is the worst that could happen?

If they invested all that fortune on performing such powerful attack, then they could stop Bitcoin. It's pretty simple if they just extend the chain with empty blocks. But it's not beneficial for them! Despite the cost of the miners that should work consecutively, they should do that for every altcoin existing! As said by Wind_FURY it's a game theory and they ought to play by the rules. It'd be better for them if they helped the network and got rewarded in bitcoins.