Enforcement, in itself, is just a workaround to ensure compliance. In other words, enforcement is not a good solution. What is needed is a protocol-based solution that works without forking and is non-voluntary.
+1
Why not use MN with X11+ as pool.
I understand the need for enforcement, but I actually don't like it.
The lurking thought is that it demonstrates a level of control over the network. That has many unintended consequences.
For example,
* Those who would spin, could spin a view around the reality of decentralisation
* Those who would regulate, could spin a view around administration of a network
If we do it, I hope we can nuke that part of the code soon after it serves its purpose.
ALL nodes on the network are responsible for enforcing the propriety of ALL blocks mined in ALL Bitcoin-derived crypto-currencies. Hash doesn't match the block? Reject. Block contains an invalid transaction? (e.g. improperly signed?) Reject. Block doesn't conform to formatting specifications? Reject.
Of course it represents a level of control over the network. That is the entire point: that the network behaves according to a specified set of rules, which are clearly implemented in the software and spelled out in the source code. Each node (whether mining, masternode, or just an end-user wallet) acts independently to implement all of these rules, and to reject bad blocks and/or transactions before they propagate throughout the network.
Enforcing Masternode payments should not be rocket science. But it will require a hard fork. The spork method (which, IIRC, basically requires a 'switch' being thrown by Evan) implies a method of control that could possibly make people uncomfortable.
Sporkage is just putting the rules you mention into action. Same as if they were hardcoded in the first place.