Succeeding, so far. Unless we get back to basics. I actually think Bitcoin can survive all attack vectors except by the developers. Because it will just go underground for moving it into the tax realm and track and trace (Lummis Bill), ETFs and treasury companies (paper Bitcoin), Tether and shitcoins (dilution and confusion) etc. But the open back door to the code is killer. IMHO, it’s not about the severity of the change, it’s that the development process is the preferred perimeter to attack (and I’m repeating someone else’s thoughts here): - Cheaper than legislation: Defaults and "safety" framing do the enforcement work. - Plausible deniability: "We're just improving performance". - Asymmetric impact: hits sovereign users hardest; institutional wrappers unaffected. Development-Process Capture = Perimeter Control You don't have to "hack" Bitcoin's consensus rules to influence how the network behaves. You can steer what gets relayed, mined, or socially accepted by quietly shaping the development process — who gets funded, who reviews changes, which features become defaults, how releases are timed, and how communication is framed. If you expect for governments to come out and try to ban Bitcoin, don't because that's not how the system works. Systems don't rely on bans; they use knobs — adjustable defaults, standards, and processes that subtly guide behavior.