Here you are admitting that Bitcoin as it stands has a significant weakness.
This kind of shit makes me just not want to post at all. No it isn't an admission like that. All security models involve assumptions. The assumption for Bitcoin is that the attacker will not gain 51% of the network hashrate and that gaining that would be prohibitively expensive. You will notice the words "I believe", it isn't "I know". An alternate security model will be a tradeoff. There is no guarantee the modified assumptions will make the network more secure. Security is ALWAYS about compromise. The system which is most secure from an attacker with significant resources would be where an absolute central authority that manages the network. No 51% is possible but you now need absolute trust in the central authority. Although it solves one problem it creates another and I wouldn't consider that an acceptable tradeoff..
tantrums aside,
#1) It's been established that an attacker needs far less than 51% of the hashing power.
#2) Hashing power is now a Liquid Commodity, as in it can readily trade hands. This also has the effect of reducing the price of said hashing power. Staging and executing an attack does not even require hardware procurement, the entire thing could be executed from a single internet connection anywhere in the world + a modest amount of capital.
#3) the point I keep raising- the PAYOFF for such an attack is going to increase exponentially due to Color Coins, Counterparty, etc.
it seems whenever anyone raises these points some people on this forum have a fit.
-bm