Guys like xeldel make it possible to hire marketers, celebrities, or old rocket scientists who don't have a clue how to run a delegate.
It's a running joke, but you are right, it's clear I'm using it too much.By centralizing the forgers, which is exactly what you are doing whether you want to call it that or not, you are practicing a form of wealth redistribution (aka COMMUNISM!).
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
In NXT, there isn't a government.
That's fine. We are reengineering government. You don't have to participate.
In a PoS system, THEY ARE ACTUALLY INVOLVED REGARDLESS OF THEIR SIZE!
The whole point of my article is that kind of involvement is meaningless and imparts exactly zero additional security. The point was:
No outsider, much less the same outsider, will get honored with another turn in the same confirmation window to weigh in on whether any particular transaction should be confirmed. Thus, all transactions are confirmed by insiders.
True for Bitshares. FALSE FOR NXT!
Please show me an example where that has ever happened.
What are you talking about? ... With PoW, you participate in consensus if you contribute hashpower. With PoS, you participate in consensus if you own coins and forge.
When you contribute hash power or lease your stake you are giving someone else, probably in the top 101 signers that authority. No different than voting for them in its net effect.
There are not just "101 pools of coins" in PoS.
I was being generous, allowing you to take credit for the Top 101 pools of your coins as having some some impact on the actual outcome in the validation of transactions. I suspect it's less. Prove me wrong and I'll eat a whole coconut cream pie.
So, its your call. Do you want your blocks signed by people who appointed themselves as insiders through their ability to acquire large pools of coins or hardware? Or would you rather have that job done by the people, even very poor people, who have done the work necessary to earn one of the best reputations?
Oh please, don't use that "meritocracy" argument again.
I can see why you wouldn't want us to use it since its one of our most potent discriminators.
