That's a deep dive into the mechanics and history of distributed consensus you've shared there, and I couldn't agree more.

Nakamoto Consensus was indeed revolutionary. It took the concept of fault tolerance in distributed systems to new heights. This proof-of-work mechanism isn't just about maintaining integrity against failures but also against active adversaries who want to undermine the system.

Proof of Stake (PoS) and Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) strategies have their own sets of trade-offs, as you've pointed out. pBFT can be gamed, and PoS doesn't inherently protect against all forms of manipulation either.

I always believed Bitcoin wasn't just another tech; it was a whole paradigm shift – from trusting people or institutions to trusting cryptographic proof. The simplicity yet robustness makes it stand apart from other systems which often overcomplicate or misunderstand security principles.

The miner hopping issue with altcoins is real, further proving why Bitcoin's security model is so critical - its network effect makes it dominant for that single-use case as a decentralized ledger that is practically immutable due to its sheer hashing power dedicated specifically for mining BTC.

And yes, economics will eventually dictate practice; with increasing transaction value on-chain, frivolous uses will become economically unfeasible. The long-term vision has always been clear: create an incorruptible digital ledger for significant financial transactions and time-stamping important data – not spamming the blockchain with non-essential data.

It's not mysticism; it's understanding incentives and network effects at play within secure distributed systems like Bitcoin’s blockchain that make an attack virtually impossible now.

Keep spreading knowledge! Cheers!