Re: DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?)
I just now read your ridiculous arguments. I guess you've been posting this all around to use against PoS. 
Too bad I gave up in debating you because I was wasting too much time, and now you act like you "won". That is your move though, so I'm not surprised.
No variants can. And the last time you debated me, I defeated you on every single point. Are we going to have to do it again?
See Bitshares, genius.
Again the point is that with PoS, there is no FAIR or EQUITABLE way to distribute new coins that doesn't mimic the proportionality of the existing stakes, thus this is the same as the divisibility that is already built into the existing coins. No new distribution was achieved, just offsetting inflation.
If you have any other gimick in mind, please cite it specifically, so I can identify the flaw for you. You have been hoodwinked.
The amount of say you get in the company is compared to the amount of stake that you own. Corporations have been thriving on such practices for years now. Executives get nice stock options and benefits and the larger shareholders have more say, yet all stakeholders profit (if it is a well ran business of course.) If that is known before someone invests in a company/cryptocurrency that whoever has more stake will get more say in the company, then it is ridiculous to call it not fair.
You are also assuming that everyone votes in their best interest only and not the company's best interest, which is not always the case. If you go have a look at what each paid witness is doing for Bitshares then it becomes clear it is not the case.
I assume you mean #2, since #1 is idiotic.
But by definition the shares have to be non-fungible with shares of other corporations. So unless you make Bitshares one corporation for every productive venture, then the new shares can't be Bitshares.
So there is the flaw. You can't have one corporation that produces everything for the world. It lacks degrees-of-freedom. It is same as tying yourself to your sister and trying to each go about your daily life tied together.
Dumb shit like this is why I do not respect the Larimer incest.
This argument doesn't even make any sense. Bitshares doesn't need to be fungible with anything but Bitshares, and it can do so without "producing everything for the world".
There is a fair and equitable way to distribute new stake.
Workers: http://cryptofresh.com/workers
Then follow the link for each delegate: http://cryptofresh.com/witnesses
Every dilution source is doing something positive for shareholders. It is fair because they are making Bitshares more valuable, more so than anyone else, and they therefore deserve to be rewarded. Those that shareholders feel provide more value get more BTS.
You are living in a theoretical world in this argument, when instead you should look at it as it exists in reality. The worker proposals and delegates are providing real value to Bitshares with development, marketing, documentation, GUI improvements, etc... it is fair they get the rewards of inflation because they are the ones putting in the work.
You should try analyzing it without your rose tinted glasses.
You forgot my point that the attacker can short the coin. And that delaying transactions is an attack that could cause the share price to crater. Or DDoS attack all the others and then force all transactions on to your block. This is the problem with PoS and DPOS, because the ordering of who will mine is known before the transactions are sent. That is a major flaw compared to PoW.
You fail to admit that the bolded is not possible with DPoS. Also, your "DDOS all other delegates and force transactions into your block" would be hella dumb. Most blocks do not have much $$ worth of transaction fees. The shareholders would quickly figure out something is going on and vote your delegate out. Not to mention locating each delegate node, of which you would need to find and DDOS 100 of them. It would likely cost much more for the DDOS than you would make in transaction fees... you must not know DDOS are expensive attacks.
Further, I doubt a small attack like this can cause the price to crater, and a short/attack to be very profitable. Delegates would simply get up and running on different nodes if you were to somehow attack all of them.
Most of these types of attacks end up much less profitable than simply being an honest delegate. These attacks are also unlikely and easily mitigated and/or not possible (in the case of the bolded). It is funny you are linking to them to make your argument vs PoS. You should have learned by now that you need to analyze each PoS variant separately, genius.
Too bad I gave up in debating you because I was wasting too much time, and now you act like you "won". That is your move though, so I'm not surprised.
Also PoS can't distribute new coins, thus eventually the coin supply shrinks asymptotically to 0.
You are wrong here. There are PoS variants that distribute new coins.No variants can. And the last time you debated me, I defeated you on every single point. Are we going to have to do it again?
See Bitshares, genius.
Again the point is that with PoS, there is no FAIR or EQUITABLE way to distribute new coins that doesn't mimic the proportionality of the existing stakes, thus this is the same as the divisibility that is already built into the existing coins. No new distribution was achieved, just offsetting inflation.
If you have any other gimick in mind, please cite it specifically, so I can identify the flaw for you. You have been hoodwinked.
You are also assuming that everyone votes in their best interest only and not the company's best interest, which is not always the case. If you go have a look at what each paid witness is doing for Bitshares then it becomes clear it is not the case.
- Larger stakeholders get more (either because they can outvote the smaller ones, or because the smaller ones are somehow convinced the coin will gain more value if they give away their coins).
- Corporations are created, new shares are created, production in this economy makes these shares more valuable, minority shareholders agree to give more shares to those who run or work for the company.
I assume you mean #2, since #1 is idiotic.
But by definition the shares have to be non-fungible with shares of other corporations. So unless you make Bitshares one corporation for every productive venture, then the new shares can't be Bitshares.
So there is the flaw. You can't have one corporation that produces everything for the world. It lacks degrees-of-freedom. It is same as tying yourself to your sister and trying to each go about your daily life tied together.
Dumb shit like this is why I do not respect the Larimer incest.
There is a fair and equitable way to distribute new stake.
Workers: http://cryptofresh.com/workers
Then follow the link for each delegate: http://cryptofresh.com/witnesses
Every dilution source is doing something positive for shareholders. It is fair because they are making Bitshares more valuable, more so than anyone else, and they therefore deserve to be rewarded. Those that shareholders feel provide more value get more BTS.
You are living in a theoretical world in this argument, when instead you should look at it as it exists in reality. The worker proposals and delegates are providing real value to Bitshares with development, marketing, documentation, GUI improvements, etc... it is fair they get the rewards of inflation because they are the ones putting in the work.
You should try analyzing it without your rose tinted glasses.
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.
You forgot my point that the attacker can short the coin. And that delaying transactions is an attack that could cause the share price to crater. Or DDoS attack all the others and then force all transactions on to your block. This is the problem with PoS and DPOS, because the ordering of who will mine is known before the transactions are sent. That is a major flaw compared to PoW.
You fail to admit that the bolded is not possible with DPoS. Also, your "DDOS all other delegates and force transactions into your block" would be hella dumb. Most blocks do not have much $$ worth of transaction fees. The shareholders would quickly figure out something is going on and vote your delegate out. Not to mention locating each delegate node, of which you would need to find and DDOS 100 of them. It would likely cost much more for the DDOS than you would make in transaction fees... you must not know DDOS are expensive attacks.
Further, I doubt a small attack like this can cause the price to crater, and a short/attack to be very profitable. Delegates would simply get up and running on different nodes if you were to somehow attack all of them.
Most of these types of attacks end up much less profitable than simply being an honest delegate. These attacks are also unlikely and easily mitigated and/or not possible (in the case of the bolded). It is funny you are linking to them to make your argument vs PoS. You should have learned by now that you need to analyze each PoS variant separately, genius.