Wow!  Name calling!  Aren't you advanced...Nice to see that you read my post before responding...Why is it impossible for you to see that you can only see the results of mining power and luck?

How can you not understand that when you refer to hashrate, what you are really referring to is already solved blocks on the chain.

How can you not understand that this "hashrate" has already been used?

How can you not understand that you wouldn't see any "hashrate" being used for a 51% attack until after the attack was mounted?

Why do you think there is a "highest hashing power" model?  The system was designed for individual mining, and pools were invented later.  Human greed is what drives people to give hashpower to someone even when that power could turn that someone into their attacker, and you can't fix that with code.  If people understood what their hashpower was for and how variance works, they could switch to any number of other pools and make the same amount of money.  Unfortunately, people don't understand, so they flock to the biggest pool, just like they flock to Wal-Mart or NewEgg thinking they are getting the best prices.  Changing the protocol "because humans" is like changing umbrellas "because drought".

The whole point of every single person detracting your suggestions regarding "hashrate" is that you can't fix/prevent a 51% attack based on hashrate.  If you want to fix/prevent a 51% attack, you need to start from a different angle.  In my post that you so clearly read, I not only stated that you should try to come up with other solutions, but even linked to asother suggested solution with discussion about why it won't work.

Moreover, even if you could set up "rules" to prevent entities from having too much "hashrate," you couldn't tell what submitters were what entities if they wanted to randomly move about, and you couldn't prevent entities from teaming up to form an attack.  As such, you couldn't prevent a single entity with 50%+ power from acting as if it were several different entities in order to do the same.

As if all that weren't enough, even if you could solve all of the above, it wouldn't be fair to a legitimate entity that had a majority of the power, and fairness in mining is just as important as fungibility in coins.  Arguing that doing anything based on the hashrate of a block submitter is acceptable is no different than arguing that blocking the FBI coins would be acceptable.  Neither of those arguments reflect the premise core values of bitcoin, and if implemented, either could easily spell doom for the project.

Alternatively, as you mention the protocol could be changed, but also acknowledge that it may have taken a lot of effort to create and implement the original protocol, search the forums with these words:
hard fork alt coin
You will see all manner of "I want bitcoin to do this/that" threads with arguments about why the protocol can 't be changed.  All of those arguments basically say the same thing, which is something to this effect:
"You can't get consensus and the old protocol will live on, so the new protocol won't be bitcoin, it will be an altcoin."
Given that, yes - BTC could fail because of the 51% attack, yes - something else could take its place, yes - it could start from the existing bitcoin blockchain right at the block where the detrimental 51% attack occurred (or anytime before or after that point), but no - bitcoin would not be "fixed" by that action.

However, as I still think you're trolling, and also find that I'm out of troll food, I won't be posting in this thread again until/unless I feel that you have done something besides what I have witnessed thus far:
*attempt to spread fud
*argue that we should try to do something based on "hashrate" (which isn't logical since we're apparently still talking about logic)
*name-call
*suggest we should "change the protocol"
*continue to suggest we should "change the code" without any constructive suggestion as to how

I don't usually quote a post without adding something, but I think what you said (above) may have gotten lost in your large post.

Until you said it, I didn't know why one pool had so much power, but the Wal-Mart analogy make perfect sense. We should be working on getting this message out to miners that it's easy and no less profitable to switch to a smaller pool, and will help Bitcoin.

While his analogy might make sense, his logic on why people go there is flawed. They go there for the benefits, the benefit IS that they get more blocks solved on average.

If people consider me a troll for being mean/annoying to them, it is only because they were mean/annoying/whatever to me first. You are ok honestly. This other guy on the other hand gets back what he dishes out. They might think they are smart, but all I see the other guy spewing is CONJECTURE. I have when people conject, makes me sad.

I suppose I respond to my post too much idk. I don't usually like to comment on other posts very much, I usually just read them.

It would be an interesting exercise. What really is there to protect a Miner from malicious Miners? If Visa or whoever waged a war on BTC and legit took it down and screwed everything up, there isn't really any law that they violated is there? I am not sure if there is or not but it doesn't sound like there is yet anyway.

That's a good point. It just means that Bitcoin is not 100% fraud proof. It just costs millions of dollars worth of equipment and energy to perpetrate something that can still be traced by shipping records, electric bills, and invoices. It's a good thing that Bitcoin is Proof of Work, because there are real world ways to keep it honest.