Quote from: d'aniel on February 18, 2014, 01:42:13 AM

Quote from: Prayer on February 14, 2014, 08:21:12 PM

Quote from: d'aniel on February 13, 2014, 09:46:00 PM

Every full node checks the validity of the coinbase transaction. SPV nodes currently don't, but they could if we switch to using Merkle sum trees.

The power that miners have over the network is strictly limited to choosing the transaction ordering. Their attacks are limited to denial of service (mining empty blocks), double spending (chain reorgs), and censorship (selective rejection of transactions for political reasons).

But even this rests on the assumption that the folks running non-mining, verifying nodes are economically significant enough as a whole to resist miner fraud.

You're right, it is up to every full node to validate the blockchain, but to implement a change in the blockchain, you don't need the majority of users, or miners. You only need the majority of mining operators. Once they adopt a change, they can prevent everyone else from using Bitcoin until they comply with that change.

If the majority of mining operators (a very, very small minority of people) said "In order to spend Bitcoin, you must pay a 10% transaction fee (tax)." People would bitch and complain, but rather than letting go of their Bitcoin, they will comply with the new rules. If they decided to set Bitcoin on an inflationary tract, who's going to tell them differently? Uncle Joe, who's entire net worth is measured in Bitcoin? I don't think so. 90% are Uncle Joe, 10% will be cheering because their account balances will skyrocket!

Don't underestimate the general apathy of the people, it's a powerful weapon in the right hands.

You're seriously oversimplifying this scenario. The dynamics of such an attack are economically and socially complex, but if you think deeply about it, I think you'll find that defences can be mounted that would eventually bankrupt the attackers. Though it would be messy while it played out.

You also don't seem to be considering the implications that this attack would have on confidence in the system, if successful. It's essentially an existential threat, and giving in simply isn't an option.

Yes, I am oversimplifying the scenario, much like how the banksters and our government oversimplified the issue with Gold as a currency. The rich wanted gold as a store of wealth, while the common man just wanted something to use for purchasing everyday things like bread and milk. The two purposes were at odds, and the common man lost.

I'm sorry to have gone off on such a tangent. It wasn't my intention to get into the intentions of future parties or the ability of Bitcoin to fend off various attacks (monetary, technological, or social). I was simply trying to express that there are potential threats, and that while implementing P2Pool in the client itself could be part of a solution, it cannot solve any real problem by itself.

In order to eliminate any potential threat of consolidation of power, we would need to eliminate the 'vote by hash' system. And no, I do not believe that POS is the answer either, as that consolidates power in the hands of whomever controls the most coin. I really don't know what the answer is.