Added another flaw to PoS:
- PoS usually pays dividends to stake holders (and even relays a percentage to the developers thus must register as a Money Transmitter with FinCIN) thus arguably creating investment securities under the Howey test and thus must be registered with the SEC or face possible jail time
| [3] | The other flaw of PoS, and especially DPOS and Dash masternodes (as pointed out by smooth et al) is you are paying yourselves via the shares from an enterprise that issued unregistered investment securities and which also requires each stakeholder to register as a money transmitter with FinCIN. I can't fathom how you convinced yourself that you are not going to jail in the future or end having to lick the boots of the SEC as Erik Voorhees did to wiggle out of jail time.
|
This is not a flaw, otherwise you have to accept that decentralized cryptocurrencies are impossible just because in the future USA can declare them illegal.
By definition to be SUSTAINABLY decentralized, then a P2P system should be resilient to government action against nodes of the system. Given that PoS makes the owners of the currency culpable to the government and they are also the miners, then in theory the design is not resilient to regulatory control (and as per my complaint against Satoshi's design upthread, it forces nation-states to cooperate in a world governance to cooperate on multinational regulation).
Contrast it to the Gnutella where you pretty much have to ban the protocol to destroy it. PoS is Napster, except with the distinction that government would have to go after numerous stake holders, not just one company. There is already a precedent for the
authorities doing a globally coordinated sweep.
It doesn't logically follow that there surely can't exist other designs which are resilient. Thus IMO it is a flaw.
P.S. I linked to this post on the first page to include for clarification on the contention.