> Maybe people will realize that this is not a foolproof solution and that it can "easily" (you only need computing power, a.k.a money) be beaten.
This same argument can be leveled against just about any form of cryptography. With enough computing power you can decrypt anything. No cryptography is perfect, it can only be strong.
For a lot of crypto the amount is magnitudes larger, and working for thousands (or millions) of years to break it.
I agree that the 51% attack is unlikely on BTC now, but it doesn't bear comparison to (for instance) brute forcing an AES-GCM message...
My point is just that, if you have a blockchain with sufficiently high (and distributed) hash power (relative to the amount of computing power any individual actor/group can obtain), then in theory, you start being able to make strong guarantees about consensus.
It is the same with blockchains. It is just that there isn't one that exists (yet) which has enough distributed hash power where it's infeasible for any actor/group to ever get 51%. Bitcoin is just the best example so far, some might argue it's still in its early stages, or that another blockchains will surpass it.