Hmm.. OK, one more post before I go on my hiatus... just because I like you TPTB. I am done wasting my time in this thread for at least a week, but I may post in your thread TPTB because it is actually intellectually stimulating. 
I thought you were also reading my thread because you posted in it.
Sorry, I haven't had time to read the whole thread although I read parts of it... maybe by not posting in this thread for a while I can catch up on yours. It would be a much better use of my time, that's for sure!
You, and the other posted in this thread, seem to be focused on the shortcomings of every facet of Bitshares without considering (or mentioning) the positives that come along with the different technologies that Bitshares is composed of. Give me an example of any latest-greatest technology, and I will make it look like a pile of crap by focusing on and detailing all of its shortcomings.
I do not think Bitshares is getting a fair shake on these forums and is unfairly singled out regarding a lot of issues that other coins have as well, and I seem to be one of the few that is willing to waste their time defending it (even though the Bitshares token is less than 6% of my holdings.) I am also a stakeholder of all the coins that the trolls seem to have derived from, which ironically makes me have to FUD my own holdings just to point out the stupidity in their statements. I own Nubits, Nushares, and Nxt... all coins that are being championed as much better than Bitshares for random reasons ITT. I see the pros and the cons of each coin/technology with as much of an unbiased approach as possible. I just wish everyone else could do the same.
I do not think the following is possible in dPoS (I'm not sure about other forms of PoS), because delegates cannot change or set transaction fees by themselves. Transaction fees can only be changed by committee members which are elected by stakeholder vote. Not including a transaction because it doesn't have a certain amount in transaction fees seems silly, because the next honest delegate will do so and the honest delegate will get whatever fees are associated with the transaction. They would basically be giving up free money, putting a big red flag on their witness campaign, and it would be very likely that would get them voted out. Part of the incentive for delegates to stay honest is the future income of blocks produced in the future, although as I stated earlier... even if they are dishonest there is not much they can do other than withhold transactions from blocks (and the transaction would be included in the next block produce by an honest delegate.) The way I understand it, DPoS' main weakness is that all consensus algorithms suffer from.. a 51% attack.
The worst they can do is exclude transactions from a block (which would quickly be noticed by stakeholders anyway) which would delay the confirmation of a transaction until the next honest delegate produces a block.
I thought you were also reading my thread because you posted in it.
There is a worst they can do to a PoS coin (including DPOS):
[1] Another scenario is DDoS attack other stake holders when their turn to mine a block, then jack up your transaction fees sky high when its your turn to mine a block.
Also you seem to not acknowledge that PoS coins can be shorted, so the risk of losing the value of the stake is not really valid argument.
I understood that PoS was motivated by the flaws in PoW. In my thread, I am working on trying to remove those flaws from PoW. We will have to see what emerges from that.
I am not saying dPoS or PoS is perfect, and I admittedly am not as well versed as you in the technologies to understand all of the attack vectors associated with them. I was just stating that the attack vectors DE is bringing up cannot bring Bitshares to its knees and have been mostly (or eventually will be) mitigated. As you state, all variants of PoS and PoW that currently exist are imperfect, and I'm not sure that a perfect solution will ever be found... as you state you are trying to remove those flaws from PoW. Which consensus algorithm is better than the other is highly debatable, and had been unendingly debated for years now. Each has its own set of pros and cons, and who is anyone to decide which pros or cons should be more or less important than others.- even 0.1% stake can attack the coin because block solutions are exclusive to some stake holder so the stake holder can delay transactions[1]
[1] Another scenario is DDoS attack other stake holders when their turn to mine a block, then jack up your transaction fees sky high when its your turn to mine a block.
Also you seem to not acknowledge that PoS coins can be shorted, so the risk of losing the value of the stake is not really valid argument.
I understood that PoS was motivated by the flaws in PoW. In my thread, I am working on trying to remove those flaws from PoW. We will have to see what emerges from that.
You, and the other posted in this thread, seem to be focused on the shortcomings of every facet of Bitshares without considering (or mentioning) the positives that come along with the different technologies that Bitshares is composed of. Give me an example of any latest-greatest technology, and I will make it look like a pile of crap by focusing on and detailing all of its shortcomings.
I do not think Bitshares is getting a fair shake on these forums and is unfairly singled out regarding a lot of issues that other coins have as well, and I seem to be one of the few that is willing to waste their time defending it (even though the Bitshares token is less than 6% of my holdings.) I am also a stakeholder of all the coins that the trolls seem to have derived from, which ironically makes me have to FUD my own holdings just to point out the stupidity in their statements. I own Nubits, Nushares, and Nxt... all coins that are being championed as much better than Bitshares for random reasons ITT. I see the pros and the cons of each coin/technology with as much of an unbiased approach as possible. I just wish everyone else could do the same.
I do not think the following is possible in dPoS (I'm not sure about other forms of PoS), because delegates cannot change or set transaction fees by themselves. Transaction fees can only be changed by committee members which are elected by stakeholder vote. Not including a transaction because it doesn't have a certain amount in transaction fees seems silly, because the next honest delegate will do so and the honest delegate will get whatever fees are associated with the transaction. They would basically be giving up free money, putting a big red flag on their witness campaign, and it would be very likely that would get them voted out. Part of the incentive for delegates to stay honest is the future income of blocks produced in the future, although as I stated earlier... even if they are dishonest there is not much they can do other than withhold transactions from blocks (and the transaction would be included in the next block produce by an honest delegate.) The way I understand it, DPoS' main weakness is that all consensus algorithms suffer from.. a 51% attack.
Quote
[1] Another scenario is DDoS attack other stake holders when their turn to mine a block, then jack up your transaction fees sky high when its your turn to mine a block.