Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 13, 2016, 10:08:34 PM

Go read the discussion.

That discussion - while not necessarily untrue in a philosophical sense - is so full of generalisations and assumptions as to be useless in appraising any practical implementation of "stake" or otherwise.

It's a bit like observing that an airliner wing's aerofoil profile is perfectly stall-able in severe turbulence and concluding that it's unfit for purpose. You can't really argue with the point and yet millions of airliners are safely covering billions of miles in diverse atmospheric conditions without a problem.

Take points like this for example:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on January 08, 2016, 07:11:59 PM

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]

As with most of Anonymint's arguments, this is a philosophical point only. Calling it "truth" and trashing everyone who disagrees with it is just over indulgence and myopic obession with arbitrary dimensions of the appraisal. Though it may apply generally at a philosophical level, it could be a practical concern in some cases and of negligible significance in others. In fact I already raised an issue similar to this in on the Dash forums and it's under discussion as are a host of others.

The fact is if you were to look back at the technological breakthroughs of the 20th Century you'd have no difficulty in making that kind of philosophically adverse appraisal retrospectively. However if the creators had done that at the time to the exclusion of all mitigating practical factors, none of them would ever have been brought into existence. (Which possibly explains why Anonymint's own projects have never materialised or are likely to).