I have some concerns I will acknowledge here, which I hope will not be dismissed as vile shitcoiner FUD.

1. There appears to be a fundamental and intractable tension between self-custody and scalability. Fedimint, for instance, has been proposed as a technique to scale Bitcoin to billions of users. But in so scaling, users must trust the custodians of their funds.

2. In my view, it remains to be seen whether the U.S. government will be able to interfere with mining. One potential attack is MIT's ChainAnchor, which Shinobi links to on the pinned post of his Twitter profile. In that attack, regulators offer payments to miners in exchange for complying with certain rules, such as enforcing anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing laws. This would be achieved by creating a separate blockchain called the "ChainAnchor" that would be used to make payments to compliant miners. The government would then "eliminate the remaining non-registered miners, making it impossible to use or mine Bitcoin without first registering your identity." See #[2] at https://petertodd.org/2016/mit-chainanchor-bribing-miners-to-regulate-bitcoin.

3. The time-warp attack, another scary if unlikely scenario that Shinobi brought to my attention. A 51% attacker can not only censor transactions: he can literally break the network by the difficulty and DDoSing all nodes. See https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/79892/what-are-forward-blocks. Shinobi argues, however, that this attack could be solved or at least mitigated via a soft fork.