Quote from: r0ach on September 17, 2015, 11:21:18 PM

If it was trustless, it would be a democracy. This is why PoW is a less efficient, worse scaling, resource wasting form of DPoS. They're both republics. One is designed to be that way, the other reaches the same conclusion by creating a Rube Goldberg machine that eats megatons of coal and spits out a less decentralized, lower performing system afterwards. Both systems are republics, both systems are delegation, denying it is intellectually dishonest.

PoW may be less efficient than DPoS(some would argue this would eventually change as evidenced by expensive elections), but certainly not more effective. There has already been plenty of examples where miners have left pools in anticipation of a potential attack. Additionally, many miners are setup with fallback pools or to switch between pools in event problems arise.

This is not to say that pools create no security weaknesses or concerns , merely you are overstating your case. Additionally, it is possible for these trends to reverse themselves with proper incentives set in place to cover the cost or reward p2p pools.

Quote from: r0ach on September 17, 2015, 11:21:18 PM

If it was trustless, it would be a democracy.

What an odd statement to make. How is trust in anyway related to democracies? Pure Democracies are far from trustless and consist of two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner. No cryptocurrency is trustless... people really need to stop using that term inappropriately.