So what if you are incorrect? Is that what you mean to say?
What about double spending allows miners to control all future transactions afterwards? Double spending is of course undesirable but its hard to imagine its profitable to organize such an attack when it immediately begins burning money once word gets out, and if it didn't it would devalue the miners' own infrastructure when people lose faith in the currency.
You can dream up many a scheme where it can happen, and renting hash is certainly a problem down the road for many coins, but you're exaggerated presentation of the 51% attack is clearly flawed and stemming from your simple understanding how the network reaches consensus.
If you own 51% or more of net you may double spend as much as you like. Essentially you get to print money for yourself, while screwing over someone.
Sure, you might fork it, but nothing prevents previous 51% mining rigs from taking over the fork.
Bitcoin like any p2p tech relies on concensus. Which is fine when it comes to torrents, less fine when it comes to online games, and downright catastrophic when it comes to money.
No, you do not get to print money. The value of Bitcoin, for example, is what people are willing to trade it for. You cannot stealthily sustain a 51% attack and will therefore be devaluing your equipment (you are the most invested person in the network likely by far).
There are cases where this isn't true. If you are able to rent the hashpower then you can 51% attack without worrying about equipment devaluation; if there is an equally valuable coin which uses the same hash function you could migrate to it after. These are somewhat unlikely; Why would one ever rent out 51% hash? Gaining 51% hashpower is extremely expensive and relies on the network community not reacting to it.
But lets say the unlikely happened. If I hold Bitcoin and I understand that someone holds 51% hashpower by credible reports of malicious re-orgs, I simply do not send. At this point I would wrap my tokens onto another blockchain if I needed to send them and wait for a solution. Its certainly not catastrophic, and the majority of people on the network will not lose their coins. The community reaction greatly hinders profitability of an attack. Its also very unlikely - not a significant concern, but also not an unsolvable problem should it become one.
What about double spending allows miners to control all future transactions afterwards? Double spending is of course undesirable but its hard to imagine its profitable to organize such an attack when it immediately begins burning money once word gets out, and if it didn't it would devalue the miners' own infrastructure when people lose faith in the currency.
You can dream up many a scheme where it can happen, and renting hash is certainly a problem down the road for many coins, but you're exaggerated presentation of the 51% attack is clearly flawed and stemming from your simple understanding how the network reaches consensus.