Quote from: bitclown on July 06, 2011, 11:52:16 PM

Quote from: eramus on July 06, 2011, 11:37:34 PM

Quote from: bitclown on July 06, 2011, 11:33:36 PM

It's ironic that the users who are supposed to guarantee for the security of the network are the ones who care the least about it as long as it makes them a couple of legacy bucks.

who is designated responsibility for the security of the network? is that not up to the users to secure themselves? via securing their wallets and taking personal responsibility for third parties that they trust (pools, exchanges, etc)?

It's the miner's job to verify the block chain. This is the main nerve of Bitcoin, and it's not affected by locally encrypted files or auditing of services.

Quote from: Steve on July 06, 2011, 11:42:15 PM

If the operator started monkeying with the transactions in the blocks it created...or tried to withhold some blocks in order to effect a double spend, I think it would get noticed in short order and the pool operator would find themselves swimming alone very quickly.

If the motive of a pool operator is to discredit Bitcoin rather than profit, this attack would do much more damage than a few exchange rate swings. We've seen how BTC Guild usage recently exploded, so it's not unthinkable that future pools will be able to gain mass network share. If profit is the motive I guess it would be a lot easier to just keep a few blocks now and then without announcing it to the users. And I suspect this is already happening.

Why risk taking a whole block every now and then when you get 3% of each block anyway?

And it isn't risk free, the miner could have software that informs him he has found a block, and if it isn't later reported, it could arouse suspicion.