Reducing the chance of a 51% attack

[WishIStartedSooner]

I just had a thought.

Could a powerful bitcoin ally capable of executing a 51% attack, instead use that power to gain just below 50% of the hashing power, and sit on it?

If so, perhaps as a community we could all pool in and create this?

EDIT: thinking about this more, everyone is already trying to do that by default I guess.

EDIT again: decided to rephrase the question.

Could we secure the network any by "beating them to the punch," so to speak?

[dscotese]

We already have.  There doesn't need to be a pool.  What allures you, I think, perhaps subconsciously, is the centralization represented by the pool operator.  That is the danger we're trying to avoid.  It's why I like the nearly 1/3 of the pie at https://blockchain.info/pools that is called "Unknown".

Please don't feel attacked by my reference to centralization.  I see it in myself all the time.  We are victims of the status quo.  We use coins to struggle against it.

[WishIStartedSooner]

You're right.

That sucks.

So we pretty much just have to wait it out and hope the coins get spread out evenly enough?

[dscotese]

You're right.

That sucks.

So we pretty much just have to wait it out and hope the coins get spread out evenly enough?

Well, coin distribution is a different story.  I'm kind of ambivalent on that "problem".  I think my basic assumption there is that if they hoard it, they keep the value of mine high, and if they dump it, then I can buy a lot on the dips.  They can't really hide it because the ledger is public.  So it doesn't worry me much.

Hashing power is what the 51% attack is all about, and anyone can help with that by buying a little hardware and setting up a miner to join a pool, and be ready to switch to a different pool if needed.

That makes me curious about how one would be able to tell if one was contributing hashing power to an attacker.  I think it might be impossible because the software would have to be altered to use a different set of transactions than the network is broadcasting.

So cheer up!

[WishIStartedSooner]

You're right.

That sucks.

So we pretty much just have to wait it out and hope the coins get spread out evenly enough?

Well, coin distribution is a different story.  I'm kind of ambivalent on that "problem".  I think my basic assumption there is that if they hoard it, they keep the value of mine high, and if they dump it, then I can buy a lot on the dips.  They can't really hide it because the ledger is public.  So it doesn't worry me much.

Hashing power is what the 51% attack is all about, and anyone can help with that by buying a little hardware and setting up a miner to join a pool, and be ready to switch to a different pool if needed.

That makes me curious about how one would be able to tell if one was contributing hashing power to an attacker.  I think it might be impossible because the software would have to be altered to use a different set of transactions than the network is broadcasting.

So cheer up!

I phrased it that way because I figure if we hit 21 million without a 51% then we're safe right? By that time, if we're safe, the coin will be distributed somewhat vaguely evenly (at least, nobody has more than half).

[hazek]

The only answer I can envision for the >50% attack threat is a change in the proof of work concept where the most computational work alone is not enough to gain the ability to overpower the network and some other math based condition must be met that can be easily achieved the first time, is counterfeit proof and can't be easily reproduced while still following the rules.

What that is I have no idea.  

[FreeMoney]

You're right.

That sucks.

So we pretty much just have to wait it out and hope the coins get spread out evenly enough?

Well, coin distribution is a different story.  I'm kind of ambivalent on that "problem".  I think my basic assumption there is that if they hoard it, they keep the value of mine high, and if they dump it, then I can buy a lot on the dips.  They can't really hide it because the ledger is public.  So it doesn't worry me much.

Hashing power is what the 51% attack is all about, and anyone can help with that by buying a little hardware and setting up a miner to join a pool, and be ready to switch to a different pool if needed.

That makes me curious about how one would be able to tell if one was contributing hashing power to an attacker.  I think it might be impossible because the software would have to be altered to use a different set of transactions than the network is broadcasting.

So cheer up!

I phrased it that way because I figure if we hit 21 million without a 51% then we're safe right? By that time, if we're safe, the coin will be distributed somewhat vaguely evenly (at least, nobody has more than half).

No. As long as anyone is using Bitcoin there will be new blocks containing transactions and a 51% attack is possible. The only thing that happens near 21 million coins mined is that miners get only fees instead of fees and subsidy.

[WishIStartedSooner]

You're right.

That sucks.

So we pretty much just have to wait it out and hope the coins get spread out evenly enough?

Well, coin distribution is a different story.  I'm kind of ambivalent on that "problem".  I think my basic assumption there is that if they hoard it, they keep the value of mine high, and if they dump it, then I can buy a lot on the dips.  They can't really hide it because the ledger is public.  So it doesn't worry me much.

Hashing power is what the 51% attack is all about, and anyone can help with that by buying a little hardware and setting up a miner to join a pool, and be ready to switch to a different pool if needed.

That makes me curious about how one would be able to tell if one was contributing hashing power to an attacker.  I think it might be impossible because the software would have to be altered to use a different set of transactions than the network is broadcasting.

So cheer up!

I phrased it that way because I figure if we hit 21 million without a 51% then we're safe right? By that time, if we're safe, the coin will be distributed somewhat vaguely evenly (at least, nobody has more than half).

No. As long as anyone is using Bitcoin there will be new blocks containing transactions and a 51% attack is possible. The only thing that happens near 21 million coins mined is that miners get only fees instead of fees and subsidy.

Gotcha. Guess I'm still solidifying my understanding of this thing. In that case, is it possible for a benevolent soul to sit on 50% of the hash power?

[FreeMoney]

You're right.

That sucks.

So we pretty much just have to wait it out and hope the coins get spread out evenly enough?

Well, coin distribution is a different story.  I'm kind of ambivalent on that "problem".  I think my basic assumption there is that if they hoard it, they keep the value of mine high, and if they dump it, then I can buy a lot on the dips.  They can't really hide it because the ledger is public.  So it doesn't worry me much.

Hashing power is what the 51% attack is all about, and anyone can help with that by buying a little hardware and setting up a miner to join a pool, and be ready to switch to a different pool if needed.

That makes me curious about how one would be able to tell if one was contributing hashing power to an attacker.  I think it might be impossible because the software would have to be altered to use a different set of transactions than the network is broadcasting.

So cheer up!

I phrased it that way because I figure if we hit 21 million without a 51% then we're safe right? By that time, if we're safe, the coin will be distributed somewhat vaguely evenly (at least, nobody has more than half).

No. As long as anyone is using Bitcoin there will be new blocks containing transactions and a 51% attack is possible. The only thing that happens near 21 million coins mined is that miners get only fees instead of fees and subsidy.

Gotcha. Guess I'm still solidifying my understanding of this thing. In that case, is it possible for a benevolent soul to sit on 50% of the hash power?

Presumably benevolent souls sit on 100% of the power right now, at least we don't have reason to think otherwise, but we wouldn't necessarily know. The problem with knowing who controls an immense amount of power is that they'll be defeated with drugs and a $5 wrench.

Also, it wouldn't help in the slightest for the current power to be shuffled around. The only thing that helps is more power.