Hard fork is very different from double spend attack that miners can try. As long as I run my full node when accepting Bitcoin, I can choose which node I run (I guess I don't give away a big a secret if I tell you that I run Bitcoin Core).

The DAO hard fork happened because most people with economic power who run nodes in Ethereum accept Vitaly's decision. With Bitcoin there's a concensus at this point that only bug fix hard forks are accepted.

> With Bitcoin there's a concensus at this point that only bug fix hard forks are accepted.

There was a consensus that Cyprus bank accounts were solvent, until they weren't.

> The DAO hard fork happened because most people with economic power who run nodes in Ethereum accept Vitaly's decision.

Yes. The point is that can happen to Bitcoin, too.

Is it unlikely? Perhaps. It's also unlikely you'll have your bank account take a haircut via government action like Cyprus took.

These are in entirely different classes of unlikely.

What's more, you've shown that you know enough about cryptocurrencies that you know this.

You are arguing in bad faith.

> These are in entirely different classes of unlikely.

I disagree.

I'm ultimately arguing that this:

> I understood it that if I keep the private key secure, nobody can take it away from me.

Is demonstrably false, both from a practical and a technological standpoint.

I've more faith in developed-world governments than I do in Bitcoin's miners.

For it to be demonstrably false for Bitcoin, you would have to demonstrate that it has ever been false.

Which you won't do, because you can't.

Sorry, you’re arguing Bitcoin is technologically immune to a 51% attack?