Miners operate the majority of Bitcoin nodes.

[Atlas]

Why is this a problem? Why should every user be influenced into installing software and operating a node?

[Blazr]

Why is this a problem? Why should every user be forced to install software and operate a node as well?

Nobody is forced to install anything. They can run a lite-client or use a web-wallet if they wish.

[Atlas]

Why is this a problem? Why should every user be forced to install software and operate a node as well?

Nobody is forced to install anything. They can run a lite-client or use a web-wallet if they wish.

Edited.

[benjamindees]

Trading Bitcoins has a cost.  The cost is that of operating the network.  Relying on this network without accounting for the cost is an externality.  It is in your best interest to operate a node, and not to be dependent upon miners operating the network for you.  Suggesting that you act in your best interest is not undue force or influence.

[bitvientiane]

As long as you are a small player I'd say it doesn't really matter for you personally if you run a node or not. For the network of course every node counts.

[fivemileshigh]

Everything has a cost, including running a client long enough to keep it up to date. Perhaps miners can do it more efficiently.

[hazek]

I imagine someday soon, especially once transaction fees start getting higher and higher due to lower and lower rewards merchants who accept bitcoins or run a business exclusively catered to Bitcoin like mtgox and bitinstant will see a great benefit in running their own mining operation which will solve this "problem".

[Atlas]

Do what you want. No one is forcing you to do anything.

Most miners use a mining pool. Most miners don't run a full node, as this is not required for pooled mining. So thousands of miners could be relying on tens of nodes.

I want a healthy robust network that is capable of withstanding various attacks. I run a node on every computer that I have access to.

Isn't the most threatening attack one of 51% of the computing power confirming most of the blocks?

[SuperHakka]

I'm not a miner but I run bitcoin-qt on three different computers, one of which I use as my wallet. I do this to contribute a small bit to the smooth running of the system which is in my own best interests.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Why is this a problem? Why should every user be influenced into installing software and operate a node as well?

Why & how exactly do you think that every user is **forced** to do anything ?

PS.
Also, why the hell do you keep changing your Avatar ?

[jgarzik]

Isn't the most threatening attack one of 51% of the computing power confirming most of the blocks?

No.   Any miner doing that will cause bitcoins to lose all value, at which point the network will route around the troublemaker.

[Gabi]

Why is this a problem? Why should every user be influenced into installing software and operating a node?

Because the more node there are, the better. Bitcoin is a p2p network. When a serious attack will happen, we will need as many nodes as possible.

[Stephen Gornick]

Why is this a problem? Why should every user be influenced into installing software and operating a node?

The Sybil attack is described here:

Clients with a checkpoint (even a very old one) that download and validate the headers for the whole blockchain are not vulnerable to Sybil attacks in the following sense: they can always ensure that an attack would cost more than the amount being stolen.

 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Thin_Client_Security


Also, if you can cut communications with 90% of the miners' hashing capacity, you only need 10% of mining capacity to perform a 51% attack.

A miner that finds access to pools blocked can mine solo (e.g., using P2Pool even) or go on Tor, but the network is more resilient with more full blockchain-verifying nodes.

Now the current database that was used for the Bitcoin.org client ended up being a poor choice, and a switch to a better choice (which didn't even exist when the Bitcoin client was first architected) is being developed as we speak.

[TheBible]

Why is this a problem? Why should every user be influenced into installing software and operating a node?

A reminder that you ran a script that ran software on other people's computers without their knowledge or consent.

[kwoody]

A 51% attack would be fairly easy for anybody with the resources to do so(government) from what I understand..
Just take down Deepbit, BTCGuild, 50BTC, Eclipse, Ozcoin simultaneously.. All of a sudden 2-3 TH is all that's needed to gain 50.1%+ of the network.. am I wrong here?  Seems like the bigger pools need to distribute their hashrates, maybe to multiple Cloud EC2 instances?

[Graet]

A 51% attack would be fairly easy for anybody with the resources to do so(government) from what I understand..
Just take down Deepbit, BTCGuild, 50BTC, Eclipse, Ozcoin simultaneously.. All of a sudden 2-3 TH is all that's needed to gain 50.1%+ of the network.. am I wrong here?  Seems like the bigger pools need to distribute their hashrates, maybe to multiple Cloud EC2 instances?

sure, you footing the bill?

actually most miners are smarter than most of the community gives them credit for.
All of the good mining software has failover mode where you can enter multiple pools including p2pool and solo mining
I know people that set up mining software with 10 pools then p2pool then solo mining in their failover - that hashrate doesn't just "disappear" if big pools are attacked
cheers
Graet

[hazek]

am I wrong here? 

Yeah you are. Anyone with the ability to mine in a pool has the ability to mine solo or even better switch to another pool. They may knock out a few pools but I bet people would quickly start solo mining or switch to another pool.

[SuperHakka]

ya, the bitcoin client needs a DEFCON type warning system to alert all nodes that the network is under possible attack. Then mining software and users can take action or at least be prepared.

[Mobius]

A 51% attack would be fairly easy for anybody with the resources to do so(government) from what I understand..
Just take down Deepbit, BTCGuild, 50BTC, Eclipse, Ozcoin simultaneously.. All of a sudden 2-3 TH is all that's needed to gain 50.1%+ of the network.. am I wrong here?  Seems like the bigger pools need to distribute their hashrates, maybe to multiple Cloud EC2 instances?

sure, you footing the bill?

actually most miners are smarter than most of the community gives them credit for.
All of the good mining software has failover mode where you can enter multiple pools including p2pool and solo mining
I know people that set up mining software with 10 pools then p2pool then solo mining in their failover - that hashrate doesn't just "disappear" if big pools are attacked
cheers
Graet

All miners should have at least 3 different backup pools, you could also list your primary pool with each one of it's servers as backup and then have alternatives, at the minimum, setup to mine on a p2pool node using one of your bitcoin addresses, as your next to last, then solo mining as your final backup, then you will always be mining somewhere unless it's your connectivity that is down.

[Atlas]

ya, the bitcoin client needs a DEFCON type warning system to alert all nodes that the network is under possible attack. Then mining software and users can take action or at least be prepared.

There is an alert system for Bitcoin-Qt.