"Proof-of-Stake Politics (non-decentralized governance)" - I guess you haven't been following Bitcoin lately? There are just as much politics involved with PoW as soon as a cryptocurrency is large enough. Google "Bitcoin block size limit controversy".
Perhaps you haven't noticed that changing Bitcoin's protocol is incredibly difficult because it requires convincing 50% of the mining hashrate to do so. In my design, it will require ~100%. That is zero effective politics. People can foam at the mouth but they can't actually change the protocol.
That sounds like a horrible idea... you are banking on the fact you will release the cryptocurrency without any flaws. Furthermore, it will be hard to make changes if something desperately needs to be changed. One saboteur can ruin it for everybody. If Satoshi would have made Bitcoin that way, I'm sure Bitcoin would already be dead. Cryptocurrencies need to be able to evolve easily due to unknown issues that will certainly come up in the future.
Whereas in Proof-of-Stake coins, the collectivized, centralized control is absolute.
Also I assume you are ignoring the radical distinction in the security model. I will link the chart to our recent epiphany on explaining that distinction.
As stated above, there is a reason why a "majority rules" system is best. And yes, I have no idea what you are referring to when you say "radical distinction", however I've probably read about it before as I have been in and/or read a lot of PoS v PoW debates before. I have a full time job, a life, etc.. I don't have all day to spend on the forums like some people...
Bitshares R&D is average yet Monero (LOL) is above average and your vaporware is above average. Monero releases one whitepaper and all the sudden they are above average R&D... give me a break lol.
Monero cleaned up the rough edges of Cryptonote such as getting the wallets correct for the equal denominations for mixing. They were able to bring a polished CN implementation to the market. They focused on doing one thing well. Perhaps Boolberry also accomplished some of those too, but afaik zoid has become unresponsive. Although I say CN is unprovable anonymity, that is not saying it is not anonymous mixing. Tor is unprovable too, yet many people feel it aids their privacy. I saw that Dash is spyware because the anonymity is trusted to masternodes which are an obvious target for the NSA or anyone who can profit on breaking anonymity (e.g. those who want to blackmail you or whatever).
Monero has invented RingCT. That is not trivial cryptography. Even Blockstream folks were involved and impressed. Two months before they completed theirs, I (claim to have) invented a similar system ZKT (Zero Knowledge Transactions) which is based on the theoretically more compact CCT instead of Blockstream's CT. I even claim to have improved CCT to eliminate its weaknesses (e.g. the requirement for the Proof-of-Square). Simultaneously I perfected Satohi's Proof-of-Work, and the details of that are in my thread. That is something that no one else has been able to do.
So yeah, my R & D is above average, especially for only 1 dude. (and I am not even formally trained in the requisite math and cryptography, so I started with a handicap)
Afaics, Dash has invented nothing original but Dunning-Kruger flaws.
That's nice, but you're largely discrediting the R&D Bitshares and other cryptocurrencies have done.
Afaics BitShares has introduced inferior systems such as DPOS which suffer from the flawed security model of Proof-of-Stake. They do some reasonably high-level tech (Daniel is smart dude) but afaics their focus has been incorrect. I remain somewhat opened-minded to BitShares, because at least Daniel is smart.
Crap like BitUSD failed afaik. As what I remember, many of Daniel's ideas have been not very well thought out. Nevertheless he is a smart dude, so I don't entirely ignore BitShares (unlike Dash which I totally ignored for the past year until they announced Evolution which purports to compete with my design, so then I had to investigate more closely).
You PoW zealots love to harp on PoS as being insecure, yet there has only ever been one successful attack on a PoS coin (and it was one that is dying with little community support- similar to how numerous PoW coins with low hash rate have been successfully attacked.) dPoS also allows for many great features.. it is the backbone for SmartAssets, Hire-able employees, high scalability, etc..
bitUSD has not failed- look at a historic graph and it has held its peg quite well. It did not work as it was originally designed, but it certainly works. You (wrongly) think you are omniscient and know what features are important for a cryptocurrency to succeed, and thus disregard all innovations Bitshares has invented/implemented as useless. At least I can admit when I am wrong or when I am speculating.
You obviously have no idea how much R&D in many different decentralized technologies Bitshares has done in its forums as a community over the past couple years. They've done way more research and development than Monero and yourself combined.
They have done a lot of ideas that seem dubious to me. Agree they are very busy and have engineering talent. But they don't seem to have focused talent. They've accomplished somethings, but nothing stands out for me as a big win yet.
If you can point out any feature that is a really a big innovation, I am interested to reconsider my thinking about BitShares?
SmartCoins (bitAssets) (
https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/)
Decentralized SmartCoin Exchange (
https://bitshares.org/technology/decentralized-asset-exchange/)
Referral Program (
https://bitshares.org/technology/referral-rewards-program/)
Bridges/Gateways (built-in to the wallet)
Hire-able Employees (self-funding development, advertising, etc..) (due to dPoS)
Fee-backed assets (in development/conceptual phase)
The most scalable blockchain (that currently exists) (
https://bitshares.org/technology/industrial-performance-and-scalability/)
An improved multi-signature transaction protocol (
https://bitshares.org/technology/dynamic-account-permissions/)
Recurring and scheduled payments (
https://bitshares.org/technology/recurring-and-scheduled-payments/)
Collateralized Bond Market (
https://bitshares.org/technology/collateralized-bond-market/)
Stakeholder-Approved project funding (
https://bitshares.org/technology/transferable-named-accounts/)
Transferable named accounts (
https://bitshares.org/technology/transferable-named-accounts/)
Insurance (in a conceptual phase)
Stealth addresses + Confidential Transactions (more as to the Developmental side of R&D as these ideas were not original)
Etc..
This is all apparently useless according to you. You must not fully understand how everything works, that it exists, and/or the implications of all the features listed.