I'm also going to post this in the Bitcoin thread to keep things centralized and easily searched.1. So, at Block Zero - History 0000 what prevents me from saying I want to be worth 1M coins? What is the accountability? Who and/or what determines my worth in the system? How can that be verified or disputed and subsequently resolved?
2. For the sake of argument, say I move $20K USD to crypto. The institution where my known “legal tender” resided and the feds BOTH can see the transaction. Where is the anonymity?
3. Since anyone or entity can be part of the P2P network, what stops hackers or .gov from commandeering the P2P and gaining the 51% to make alterations to the block chain appear legit?
1. If you create a coin you can set whatever protocols you want. The market will decide if there's value in what you've built just like with anything else. Typically blockchains strive to be decentralized (not just in data but also in consensus mechanisms and distribution of coins) and open source (transparent and easily verified). Again, the market will decide long term if something does or does not have merit.
2. Anonymity isn't one of Bitcoin's value propositions, quite the opposite actually since it's a transparent public ledger. Despite the nonsense claims of people (many on here) that crypto is used primarily for black market activities, it hasn't been since probably 2015 and earlier. Bitcoin is easily tracked.
There are privacy coins (ZEC, XMR) and L2 networks (most of the ETH L2 rollups) that provide anonymity, but as you mentioned, onboarding large sums of money is difficult to do under the radar. Individuals can buy crypto for other individuals. I haven't looked into it in awhile but localbitcoins was a place to coordinate that.
3. For Bitcoin, an attack would need 51% of hashpower. State actors could of course do that, but it would be very difficult and it would need to be worth their time/money. In the event of an attack, it would also be fairly easy to move to another algorithm and to block attacking IPs from the network, but it would take a hard fork and consensus from miners and node operators.
For Proof of Stake (PoS) blockchains it's a bit more nuanced. Intelligently designed PoS blockchains like Ethereum have limits to daily onboarding and offboarding which means that even if a state attacker gained 51% of the circulating supply, it couldn't spin up enough validators to attack the network before it was noticed and steps to mitigate and attack are taken. With Ethereum's staking mechanism, there's a slashing penalty for attacks (or even just not being 100% operational) which means attacker's ETH is burnt and they're out whatever $$$ they spent to buy it.
Additionally, to accumulate 51% of the circulating supply of Ethereum would be very expensive now, let alone down the road, and as ETH is bought, the price would skyrocket, making it exponentially more expensive to attack.