I guess if you want to be really picky, in the real world we can probably prove that given a system with finite, contested resources, and sample size of 4 or higher, hell, why not 3 or 2, that over time, delegation of authority will occurr, or failure to do so will result in death of said participants as they compete for these resources.  From that you can probably extrapolate it will be cascading delegation until failure of distributed consensus.  Then we can be more specific and call it "delegated proof of work until cascading failure of distributed consensus."

In case you didn't notice, Bitcoin is an experimental war game exercise.  War is the ultimate consensus mechanism where the winner takes all and the loser dies.  The delegators in Bitcoin, which are the participants of the war, are currently wild, uncontrolled, unaddressed variables.  Each time one of them delegates vote power to another, you're essentially having a war casualty.  The only way to address this cascading failure of distributed consensus, is to either implement the Andrew Miller non-outsourcable problem to prevent them from delegating at all, or to make all participants immortal via a deterministic block validator set such as DPoS.  These are the only two options to move forward.

I believe the Andrew Miller solution would lose once released to compete with the deterministic block validator set in the wild.  Have you ever heard of the term "convergent evolution"?  This is what's used to describe how eyeballs form on different evolutionary paths that aren't related to one another.  The convergent evolution in this case would be deterministic block validators occuring in things like DPoS and Darkcoin independently even though both are completely different systems.


related post:  Why War is Good

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162791.0



Not even going to comment on that since I don't think you read or understand anything in this thread.