Quark CPU mining insure that each individual able to securely defend the network and protect it.
I'm not sure that is completely true. The problem with Bitcoin and a 51% attack is more about the pools than about ASIC's, though there is something of a potentially centralized problem with ASIC's, yes.
Who has more mining pools, Bitcoin or Quark? I am pretty sure BTC has MANY MANY more pools. So, what that means is, due to Quark having fewer pools, it is even more important to watch for a 51%
attack. You can have good people unknowingly mining in a bad pool - with no idea of the pools intention. I think the Gigahash.io double spend thing is exactly that.
I would suggest some form of protocol for pools to follow that doesn't allow 1 to have more than 25% or some smaller arbitrary amount. A large holder of ASIC's (or CPU's) could still control a few pools in the same way though, so we need to work on this. For sure a single point of failure.
I am a holder of both Quark and BTC, with the latter being much larger than the former. But I have to be honest here, the best Crypto's should win as this is about the people, not the money (per say.)
I mean that as a solo miner. Average people are able to start mining without specialized hardware like ASIC if a pool starts to get close to 51%. While bitcoiners have no power unless they own ASIC hardware to help the network. This is where quark beauty shines.
I don't know. A pool consists of many individual miners. Therefore they can switch or make the pool even with 50%+ act with the protocol.
Well, if I want to support the network ASICs would be nice, true. But this is not only a disadvantage of Bitcoin. How many computers do I(or one entity) need to infect to get 51%. And with Quarkcoin?