I think this assumes big holders care enough, and big holders are ETFs, corporations, whales, and soon maybe even nation states themselves, and I don't think they would care enough if a 51% attack didn't even affect them.

For example, I have to admit that even in a 51% attack, I probably wouldn't sell my bitcoins. It's still better than fiat. At least someone would have to maintain 51% to censor transactions. Also, it would mean I would have to travel far to get them out of cold storage.

Will you go back to fiat just because a few morally questionable people were censored?

First off, there's no stations. If you have something to say about the topic you should definitely post it. Honestly, I really appreciated your comment because it reminded me of that conversation with SwapMarket (which I couldn't find). Please do post when you feel like it!

I agree that there is a lot of scrutiny on Bitcoin. But I wanted to try to think about how we create little buckets for ideas like 51% attack or censorship, but in reality things are often very fluid -- in this instance, I'm trying to make the case that 51% attack and soft fork aren't so different from each other as far as what actually happens on the chain. It's just one is done cooperatively and another perhaps isn't.