You are right shitcoining is a sin. They succeed because of mass delusion lead by a group of gaslighting thieves. They exist only because of their ability to inject marketing energy into the organization, denominated by their coin much like stock, then when their game has reached a climax, they pull the rug and walk away with fiat. Altcoins are shell corporations with a stock issuance schedule controlled by software which is a publication of bylaws. He who controls the software, controls the bylaws. Altcoins have no value, regardless if they are proof of work, not because no energy has been expended to issue the coin. On the contrary, they have no value because that energy is expended on software that is not controlled by the holder of the coin. Bitcoin has successfully shifted the governance of the source code to the majority of the "shareholders" (full-node operators) which is a style of "proof of stake" where fraud and unauthorized changes to the "bylaws" are immediately detected and can be corrected through consensus.
My brother in Christ, the majority of full nodes doesn't decide anything in Bitcoin. Bitcoin was explicitly designed to resist Sybil attacks, yet one of the most common misconceptions in the space is that a majority of full nodes can enforce consensus. There is no voting in Bitcoin, except in the sense that hash power represents a vote. (Per the whitepaper, one CPU, one vote. Now, one ASIC, one vote.)
Any number of full nodes can activate a fork if there is a failure to achieve consensus. The number of nodes involved has nothing to do with the mining hash power or economic value of that chain.
reply
You are right about this. My parenthetical comment was inaccurate due to my conflation. Each node will check and store each block, but they don't have influence over mining.
reply