Indeed I am talking about a malicious one, for the large enough pools, the network hashrate is irrelevant in case of a 51% attack. Truthfully, the fact that this is argued extensively in the forum and bitcoin wiki does not prevent such a possibility.
this thread is about the problems of auroracoin. i'm happy to discuss the problems with bitcoin somewhere else. what you're saying is true and we essentially agree on the risks and failure modes of bitcoin. however, i do not equate the relatively low risk of bitcoin compared to the relatively high risk of the flawed auroracoin.
everyone should realize that bitcoin is vulnerable. i'm not minimizing any possible problems with oligarchical control of any blockchain. however, is it more likely that 11ghash of network hashrate protecting the auroracoin blockchain can and will be attacked? yes it is far more likely than a successful attack on the bitcoin blockchain.
bad things can and will happen. however, based on what we're talking about here bad things are more likely to happen to auroracoin. that is why i value bitcoin far higher than auroracoin, or any other altcoin with such vulnerability.
from your quote:
if i can't lock my house, then i wouldn't leave anything valuable in there. Similarly, i wouldn't put much value into a coin i could not secure.
i'm glad we are agreeing about this point.
there is no 100% safe blockchain, just as there is no 100% secure house however, the bitcoin blockchain is more secure than all the other currencies. i look at all cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, as a high risk investment. i'm certainly not putting my retirement into bitcoin, but i have some money i can afford to lose. it doesn't have to be 100% or 0% secure: for me it is a calculated risk, and i do not put much value into high risk investments.
i wouldn't put much value into a coin i could not secure. ergo, most of my investments are in low-volatility financial instruments, not cryptocurrencies.
that's why i have money in bitcoin, not auroracoin. that's why you should too.