The 51% "attack" is a vote, not an attack - a call to developers of bitcoin

[Bit_Happy]

True, the free market will decide and BTC isn't going to destroy it's reputation "on a whim."

I will mine all transactions and I will ignore a fork which ignores blocks with certain transactions.

I will then sell all of my altcoins that I have on that fork and purchase actual bitcoins with the proceeds.

If the coins are not fungible, they will be worthless. Miners who arbitrarily taint coins will soon experience heavy losses when they can't pay for their hardware or electricity.

I've voted with my words, and I will vote with my hashing power and wallet if need be. I may end up on the "losing" fork but I'm not going to be involved with a project that can freeze coins on a whim.

[teukon]

The 51% "attack" is a vote, not an attack

The last two sentences of Bitcoin's whitepaper.

They [Nodes] vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

I call on the developers of Bitcoin to place a priority on providing to the community and miners a simpler interface through which the miners may freeze particular coins.

The developers are each very busy working on aspects of Bitcoin they personally consider to be far more important than this.

Instead, why not rally a group of like-minded people and try to construct a just mining pool.  For each contentious issue (to be decided by the pool operator), users would be able to vote (or maybe to delegate all their votes to someone else such as one of the site owners).

[BrewCrewFan]

Go ahead, it is open source.  When it is ready, do a pull request.   Then you can see how many people believe this is a good idea in a democratic fashion.  You'll have your alt-coin, many others will stick with bitcoin.

Link?

Has a poll for this been taken already?

If your asking, I doubt you got the know how to fork BTC...

With that said... good luck on your adventure. I do not think it would turn out like you think it would.

[BurtW]

I would like to appologize.  This noob and his threads about the same damn subject, again, set me off more than most.  Instead of:

Hey everyone I have a great idea!  Let's try to destroy Bitcoin and everything it stands for by using a majority hashing attack as a way to implement a coin blacklisting fungibily attack!  Who is on board with me?

He glibly said "it is not an attack it is just a vote"!  Yes is is "just a vote" in exactly the same way voting for the Nazi party in pre WWII Germany was "just a vote".

I did get worked up a bit and due to that I made a few technical errors in my posts in this thread so  I will correct them now:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=509778.msg5627683#msg5627683

Changed to:

Quit talking about it and get off your ass and fork the chain code.  I am so sick of all these threads talking about forking the chain code.  Do it already!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=509778.msg5630004#msg5630004

Changed to:

Your proposed change of freezing coins you do not like is another example of a forking change.  So, even though the thread I gave you is discussing a fork due to a a group keeping the 25 BTC per block reward going after the protocol says it should be cut to 12.5 BTC per block, the results with your fork would be the same. may or may not directly or indirectly cause a similar fork with similar results.