I don't think it's possible to draw any conclusions about what would happen to Bitcoin, you're running into the fundamental limits of the problem of induction h

I don't think it's possible to draw any conclusions about what would happen to Bitcoin, you're running into the fundamental limits of the problem of induction here. In particular, Bitcoin mining is concentrated into a small number of pools, but the amount of actual power they hold is very questionable. Because nobody censors transactions, we can't know if miners would flee or not if they began to. English banknotes are printed by De La Rue plc, but it's not like they have a stranglehold on the English economy. If they began to act up, their 'power' would dry up very quickly. Also, even with 100% of miners cooperating, reversing a two week old transaction would still take two weeks. There are some technical issues with this, since new transaction would grind to a halt and it would generally be a mess. Note how Ethereum wasn't miners collaborating (soft fork), it was a hard fork, which required no miner cooperation at all. A hard fork of Bitcoin in this way is indeed possible, but would require the consent of a lot of entities. Ethereum is much more 'socially' centralized in terms of its governance process, and it was very obvious that if they didn't go along with it, then the big, centralized entity that held all the proceeds from the ICO would stop paying the developers, and the PR goons, and and and... I'm not going to draw any conclusions about the future based on this, but we can observe that big players (Binance) have lost money, publicly considered 51% attacks, then backed down. We can also observe the fate of Marathon's OFAC pool - he didn't fly so good, who wants to try next?