Nxt already uses TaPoS-like approach. It's called Economic Clustering.
I am aware of this and have much higher standards of security than what NxT provides.
That was the 1st step to show that known identity of a developer is a disadvantage. People start trusting him and at some point become scammed. Anonymous devs keep people suspicious and hence better protected. In short, anon devs better than non-anon ones.
Any data that supports this assertion? Comparative analysis of the security of code written by anonymous developers vs transparent ones?
We don't have to aim for the targets that you set up for us, we can also argue why "to be known" is not a prerequisite in a transparent dev process.
Your facts:
- Higher accountibilty when (=after) something goes wrong -> Does not protect you from something going wrong.
Actually, yes, repercussions can mitigate that risk .- make better informed judgements as to the motivations of certain developers -> Motivations are not relevant, could be money, could be ideology, could be anything
Motivations certainly are more important. I.E...Knowing the background and politics of a developer who was a liberal statist would allow me to be more on guard and focus in on malicious code that would undermine the project like blacklists or reversibility.- the background of the developers can give us some understanding of their technical proficiency -> So does the quality of the code they write
Yes, I agree with this in a utopian fantasy developer world. Completely, ignoring reality, and my previous comments.[/list]