"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.
Btw, thanks for raising the point that my innovation to eliminate control-of-the-majority means hard forks become that much more difficult to accomplish. I do need to make sure I pay attention to that!
A PoW coin becomes progressively more difficult to hard fork as the mining becomes more diversified. Obviously Satoshi couldand Monero can stillhard fork, because they have loyalty of the miners because it is not yet a widely adopted block chain.
But yeah, a PoW coin needs to get their protocol correct before it becomes too widely deployed.
Also note that even widely deployed, miners are much more willing to accept a hard fork which fixes a bug for as long as it isn't injuring their vested interests.
Users invest in a protocol and if politics can change the protocol at any time in the future, then users can't trust the future. This is another reason Bitcoin can't just graft on all the innovations of altcoins.
It is one of the prominent reasons I am trying to design a PoW block chain which can be hot-plugged with unlimited public block chain transaction format variants that are orthogonal to the PoW chain which remains a constant (so they don't all have to reinvent security).Whereas, PoS proponents want absolute control forever. And thus they are private club designs. Their designs will never be ubiquitous platforms because they
are not strictly protocol:
The only way you could accomplish what you stated is for the system to not enforce a consensus protocol.
---8<---
Either proof-of-stake is not a decentralized protocol for consensus so your point is correct, or vice versa so your point is incorrect. This ties into the point that
politics has absolute control in proof-of-stake. Does everyone always agree with the decision of the government. Who is that again who predicted DPOS would end up in a shooting war?
The PoW proponents are trying to design the protocol that will be the block chain for the entire internet, not some private club where we get to play King forever. Inventing a protocol that is orthogonal to politics is I think part of the definition of an end-to-end principled protocol (end-to-end is an underlying principle of all popular internet protocols).
Whereas in Proof-of-Stake coins, the collectivized, centralized control is absolute.
As stated above, there is a reason why a "majority rules" system is best.
Refuted.