- at one extreme, the service is completely trust based and very efficient and at the other extreme there is no advantage at all to having delegates but they are completely trustless.
Here is my reasoning:
Extreme lower end100% trust based, permanent list of delegates - this is the ripple labs model. They are an unchanging set, never disagree with each other and can provide transaction finality in under 3 seconds per block.
Extreme upper endEver changing list of delegates, where network latency entirely governs the current state of the network and because of that you have to wait for 50% of them to come to a consensus. Because of the ever changing set, you need sybil resistance and now you've basically got trustless POW.
Is there any middle ground in your mind?
Personally, I really dislike trust based models in crypto-currencies - trust is for the centralised banking system we've all come to know and hate.
edit: and whenever you combine anonymity with trust, you are asking for trouble IMO
IMO 'Trustless' is a completely revolutionary concept which deserves to be applied to anything and everything possible.
You didn't answer his astute question. And your dichotomous assumptions are very myopic. You do not entertain all the possibilities. You are going to receive a very big surprise when you read my entire white paper.
I told everyone that I am not ready to discuss my design at this time. When I am ready, we will in great detail.
I am not going to be following the discussion in this thread at this time. Any who continue to make more false and myopic statements, that doesn't mean you are correct.
P.S. no personal offense intended. I will appreciate the debate and discussion with you at the appropriate time. I allowed you to push me for more information and discussion than is advisable at this time for my project.
Add: I really appreciate all the interest in this topic. It is an important one.