Not necessarily bro.
There can be a side chain directly connected to the blockchain but this one will be the node chain where ALL nodes agree.
Again this is an idea worth looking into and expand.

I do not understand why people just say Fuck it, things are fine the way it is when clearly IT'S NOT.

We have witnessed a $100+ drop by the incident.
And we are still in early stages, even though adoption is growing rapidly.

What would happen if this event took place again after 2 years when BTC is mainstream and it's price is $5000?
A lot of people will lose a lot of money because the most important thing that keeps BTC and actually defines BTC was NOT protected.

the blockchain is like a virgin.
We are now allowing anyone who has the biggest dick to stick it to it.

Understand that I am all forward seing BTC succeed and I have invested quite a lot on it.
But if we (ALL OF US) want to see our investment secure we have to act now.
Before it's too late.

Maybe you don't like my idea.
I can understand that, but ideas and actual solutions to this problem don't just pop up.
We need to work and build on ideas to have a working solution.

How would ANYONE exclude anyone else this way? If my pool is not changing IP it wont loose it's priority and anyone else can gain that priority by simply being steady (not changing ip) and mining. What are you talking about? Anyone would be able to enter from scratch and would gain priority by simply mining....from 0...up to max. Noone could do anything to stop you from getting to max priority if you do not change ip and mine.

You said you wanted new IP addresses to have smaller priority than established IP addresses.  In other words, you wanted to build barriers to entry and a hierarchy of default trust.  You don't see how this could more easily lead to a monopoly?  Once the monopolists are in control, they'll have the highest priority and the highest trust levels.  It would even be possible for respected nodes to "sell" their IP addresses to malicious actors to expedite the formation of the monopoly.  

We don't need to analyze the dynamics of your proposal any further because the equilibrium state can be identified as favouring the monopoly.  

Noone could be in control, as trust would be assinged from whole network (not only miners, but all full nodes). You get "because you have steady ip and you mine" you dont "mine" priority. All full nodes on network agree on proirity....do you really think someone can control 50% of "full nodes" ?

Yes, and for less cost than controlling 51% of the hashpower. 

It is a very well known attack called a Sybil Attack. It's been a known attack against trust systems since before 2002, but gained the name in 2002 (7 years before bitcoin was created).

If we could identify and trust a "majority of nodes", we wouldn't need a proof-of-work blockchain.

Computer programmer, and computer systems designer (sometimes referred to as "Systems Architect"). With my current employer, I actually handle many additional roles including Business Analyst, Technical Adviser, New Employee Trainer, New Hire Interviewer, Customer Support, and Technical Support.


I'd make suggestions if I had any that would work.  When I come up with an idea, I think it through.  I don't think about how I expect it to work, that's the easy part.  I take the time to think through all the possible attacks I can come up with, and whether or not they can be prevented.

I've been studying the bitcoin system for 29 months.  People keep presenting the exact same ideas with the exact same flaws over and over.

Here's an important thing to keep in mind while you're trying to think of a "solution":  You aren't looking for a solution that will fix the proof-of-work blockchain.  You are looking for a solution that will fix distributed consensus.

The proof-of-work blockchain is currently the best way anyone has ever come up with to handle distributed consensus.  Anything you can come up with that can reliably prevent a miner from gaining more than 50% of the hash power will require one of two things.  Either a trusted authority that can determine and control how much hash power each entity contributes, or a method of distributed consensus that allows the entire network to agree on how much hash power each entity contributes.  If you discover a solution to distributed consensus, then you no longer need to use it to prevent a miner from gaining more than 50% of the hash power.  Instead, a new (and MUCH better) cryptocurrency can be created (or bitcoin can switch to a new protocol) that implements your newly discovered method of distributed consensus INSTEAD of a proof-of-work blockchain.

No.  Most alts are just useless copies of bitcoin with the inflation schedule changed.  There are VERY few that implement anything new when it comes to distributed consensus.  The only real alternative I've seen to a proof-of-work blockchain is a "proof-of-stake" blockchain.  Unfortunately, proof-of-stake has its own >50% problem (50% of historical stake, instead of 50% of current hashpower).  Less "coin of the week" clones of bitcoin, and more innovation into entirely new concepts would be great.


Well, fixing it means changing it, right?  And changing it means it is essentially a "new protocol" right?
I'm pretty sure I said:
"or bitcoin can switch to a new protocol"


Nah, I like bitcoin.  I'm not too concerned about the GHash.io situation at the moment.  Either participants will eventually see that they are damaging their own value and will switch to other pools, or bitcoin will fail as an experiment in distributed consensus.  It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I don't have any better solutions available.  If I did have a better solution, I'd submit code for review to Bitcoin Core to change the distributed consensus system.

It's entirely possible, and IMO likely, that a general distributed consensus theorem exists and applies to all proof-of-X (PoX) type consensus methods:

A distributed consensus system is vulnerable to an attack by an entity that controls 51% of the critical resource X.

If that's the case, the question then is how do we incentivize against a malicious entity acquiring 51% of X?  Satoshi's answer was "make doing so expensive."  So far this is working.