I hope I have more adequately explained this issue. For anyone who believes I don't have this completely figured out go ahead and try to answer my questions. There's potentially $100 in it for you.
It's evident that you were so unsure that someone actually would be able to snatch you off those $100 of the prize that you are offering through a good and very convincing argument against your theory. That you even had to add two more questions to the seven from which you hope to obtain an answer that will convince you of the opposite of what you think and claim so you can loosen those 100 buck$.
Because in fact, there is basically only one answer that encompasses and convincingly answers each and every one of the nine questions. Have you ever heard of "The Dark Side Of The BTC Rainbow" theory? Because if you haven't heard of this theory before, I'll just tell you that the correct answers to each of the nine questions you've asked, are all already in the body of your own post. Now give me my hundred dollars stingy! 
That's cute.
Someone thinking they could win without doing the bare minimum requirement was not on my Bingo card. The community never ceases to amaze.
¿What bare minimum requirement?
I admit that in my previous comment the flowery, different and extravagant prose that I used to express my opinion and point of view in relation to the fact that I agreed with your vision of what you had written and therefore it didn't give room to answers that could respond satisfactorily to any of your questions to convince you otherwise, perhaps it was a bit confusing.
I guess I should have just responded with a simple: "Yes, I agree that it's impossible to 51% attack Bitcoin." But as you know, I am not one of those who give answers that are too short and simple. No, I like to make people think!
And now we can already see that in the midst of your amazement, you got lost along the way to clearly understand the true meaning of my overwhelming prose by telling you that all the answers you were looking for; you had already written them yourself in your own post and therefore there was nothing more to add.
But nope, now you look for any excuse to not give me my 100 buck$.
Sounds like we are both misunderstanding each other.
These things happen.
LoL yeah, with me that seems to be more than frequent.
Here's something we can agree on.
What is this theory about, in 2 sentences? I have unfortunately no time to dive through your 10 linked videos.
In 2 sentences?
Well, better in just one sentence. That it always will be a big problem for people who don't have the time to dive through few links and a handful of videos to learn or find out anything new if it really was something that made them curious and caught their attention. };)
But that sentence was not about the BTC rainbow theory. Makes me suspicious you are either not able to focus, or that the theory has no point.
Of course. You are right. Either of the two options you point out could be the correct one to dispel your suspicions. However, you will never find out unless you find the time to confirm it. Take your time mate, there really is no rush. :)
One wise guy once said, if it is not possible to summarizes a concept in 2 or 3 sentences, it probably is not worth it to find out more about it. Even the highly complex relativity theory or quantum interference one could without any problem summarize in one sentence, what it is about. But if you prefer to hide the concept in 5 videos, so be it.
Great saying that of that wise guy. I agree.
However, if I already explained everything extensively and intensively in my post, why would I now want to summarize the theory in one or two sentences for anyone who doesn't have the time to absorb it?
Because there is no summary provided. It is common practice to summarize things, being a book, a presentation or a blog post. Great presenters always make summaries. Summaries are a service for the reader/listener. But up to you, if you think that´s not needed.