Pieter,
You are correct.
And also, I did prove what I set out to prove. The code provided privately to the security team will in fact consume 99% of the CPU, which means it does have an effect on the electorate. It is true the node still stubbornly passes messages, but I would argue that this is still very much a problem that would concern operators, and perhaps the threshold for a patch is much too high. A layered security system like what is found in bitcoin necessitates an attack chain. The `getdata` message is an implicit information disclosure that allows for the identification of dissenting nodes. As ZmnSCPxj pointed out, block mixing will give preemption at most 67% of the network, and the remaining dissenting nodes can be quelled by maxing out their processing power. All of this can be used together to make sure that a withheld block becomes the prevailing solution.
FPNC rebalances incentives to serve the interests of the network, and fundamentally resolves a class of abuses that reshape the electorate. FPNC will produce a more deceliterized and fair network than "first seen."
Cheers,
Mike