Re: "Failure to Understand Bitcoin Could Cost Investors Billions" (Bitcoin's flaws)
I don't claim to be omniscient, so everyone should proceed with what they want to experiment with. Let's see how it ends up.
I think by the time a PoS system become big, it will be too expansive to buy it, even for the wealthiest. Therefore they will need to buy it somewhere in its ascent, and that will deter the market to use it and another PoS system will win the adoption race.
I am confident that if it reached 10% of the dollar's reach, the USA government would act to protect the dollar's hegemony well before it had destroyed the dollar.
Besides they can tax it at will, especially since there is no strong anonymity in these PoS systems. I believe they can't build in the anonymity, because the only way I could contemplate to do this was via the pool mining (and PoS doesn't have pool mining).
Thus they can drain value from it back to dollar.
The NSA is tasked to pay attention to security threats to the hegemony. I doubt they are oblivious.
The current plan of the globalist elite is for a single global base currency, tentatively called "SDR", then the regional and national currencies will float against.
W.r.t. to the physical economy which government will always be able to tax and thus control, they will make sure the crypto-currencies float against this global reserve unit.
I don't propose to challenge that plan. I don't think anyone can.
Rather I propose that if we successfully make a crypto-currency strongly anonymous that can withstand the NSA, then we also have to protect the other means to controlling it, because (I assume) the government's plan is to control the cryto-currencies through taxation, giving them an unfavorable tax rate relative to the SDR. So if they are faced with a currency they can't tax in the virtual economy, I think they would attack it any other way, such as 51% attack for PoW or buying up a majority shares for PoS.
Thus I conclude PoS is unworkable as the strongly anonymous coin. If I have a failure in my logic or have stated something subjective, please point it out.
I need to do some research to see what incentives are planned fo "miners". I would be surprised if there were not.
They will try to obfuscate and confuse you (and themselves) on this issue by employing much complex discussion and design, but in the end they can't avoid this because this was the genius of the PoW invention.
It was not a rush for money, it was a rush for a highly speculative investment.
There is no money here and now in the cryptos landscape, only speculative investments. In your reasoning you can't treat something that is only a speculative investment as if it was already the money system of the society. It's a logical fallacy.
See Hayek for the competition in money. He did understand Austrian economics and his views on money are more relevant than the all of the Austrian crowd together imo.
My (and the Austrian) point is that money has to gain adoption over a period of time, so we need a system that provides continuous competitive distribution, not a one-shot affair.
The PoS IPO is the antithesis of currency distribution, because the wealthy spend a fraction of their wealth on consumption. So you won't be distributing this coin from wealthy to merchants, rather from wealthy to the greater fool investor. The mechanism isn't there to create a currency. The greater fool investor isn't buying it to spend as a currency, rather buying in frenzy, then a collapse in price. There is no mechanism to adopt the use as a currency. Whereas with cpu-only PoW, the currency gets pushed out via home-scale mining to anyone with PC. The home-scale miner is selling it to the wealthy. This is night and day in terms of currency distribution.
Whereas with cpu-only PoW, we are continuously diluting the wealthy (at a small, reasonable annual debasement) to get the coin into consumer's hands.
Do the wealthy play an important role? Yes indeed. They invest after the early adopters (another reason you don't want the IPO at the very start). Balance. Balance. Balance. PoS doesn't have it.
XCP is the antithesis of a scam. It was distributed by proof of burn, even the developpers had to burn their BTC to get some. It's arguably the fairest coin distribution since Bitcoin.
Ditto logic I wrote above. Thus they are not currency distributions. It appears they are some genre of pyramid scheme (for a lack of a better term to describe greater fool selling of what can't be a currency to people who think it can be).
They are doing both. They will issue X ether via an IPO and then 0.4*X ether will be distributed each year via PoW.
Maybe they should read this post of mine.
Any way, I think there comes a time for me to stop arguing with words.
They control all the fiat and credit of the world via the Central Banks. I surmise they can surely buy up a PoS system, transferring their control from existing fiat to this new fiat PoS system.
I think by the time a PoS system become big, it will be too expansive to buy it, even for the wealthiest. Therefore they will need to buy it somewhere in its ascent, and that will deter the market to use it and another PoS system will win the adoption race.
I am confident that if it reached 10% of the dollar's reach, the USA government would act to protect the dollar's hegemony well before it had destroyed the dollar.
Besides they can tax it at will, especially since there is no strong anonymity in these PoS systems. I believe they can't build in the anonymity, because the only way I could contemplate to do this was via the pool mining (and PoS doesn't have pool mining).
Thus they can drain value from it back to dollar.
The NSA is tasked to pay attention to security threats to the hegemony. I doubt they are oblivious.
And all of that is assuming there will be only one dominant currency. Which will probably not be the case. A lot of the socialist thinking come from the false premise that free market lead to monopolies. In the same manner that there is not one corporation which address each human wish, there will be no unique money. And if the wealthiest will not be able to even capture one succesful PoS system, a fortiori they won't be able to capture all the succesful PoS system.
The current plan of the globalist elite is for a single global base currency, tentatively called "SDR", then the regional and national currencies will float against.
W.r.t. to the physical economy which government will always be able to tax and thus control, they will make sure the crypto-currencies float against this global reserve unit.
I don't propose to challenge that plan. I don't think anyone can.
Rather I propose that if we successfully make a crypto-currency strongly anonymous that can withstand the NSA, then we also have to protect the other means to controlling it, because (I assume) the government's plan is to control the cryto-currencies through taxation, giving them an unfavorable tax rate relative to the SDR. So if they are faced with a currency they can't tax in the virtual economy, I think they would attack it any other way, such as 51% attack for PoW or buying up a majority shares for PoS.
Thus I conclude PoS is unworkable as the strongly anonymous coin. If I have a failure in my logic or have stated something subjective, please point it out.
Quote
Tragedy of the Commons. These systems won't be secure. Their designers are Communists disguised in Austrian economics facade, i.e. wolves in sheepskin.
I need to do some research to see what incentives are planned fo "miners". I would be surprised if there were not.
They will try to obfuscate and confuse you (and themselves) on this issue by employing much complex discussion and design, but in the end they can't avoid this because this was the genius of the PoW invention.
Quote
A one time event, like a land rush for money. Brilliant. 
It was not a rush for money, it was a rush for a highly speculative investment.
There is no money here and now in the cryptos landscape, only speculative investments. In your reasoning you can't treat something that is only a speculative investment as if it was already the money system of the society. It's a logical fallacy.
Quote
They have no clue about the Austrian theory of how money comes to be adopted, nor any sane logic about how to make a coin that sustains adoption and security growth ongoing.
A lot of Austrian economists have no clue either. How many of them disdain Bitcoin because it doesn't fit Mises' regression theorem? See Hayek for the competition in money. He did understand Austrian economics and his views on money are more relevant than the all of the Austrian crowd together imo.
My (and the Austrian) point is that money has to gain adoption over a period of time, so we need a system that provides continuous competitive distribution, not a one-shot affair.
The PoS IPO is the antithesis of currency distribution, because the wealthy spend a fraction of their wealth on consumption. So you won't be distributing this coin from wealthy to merchants, rather from wealthy to the greater fool investor. The mechanism isn't there to create a currency. The greater fool investor isn't buying it to spend as a currency, rather buying in frenzy, then a collapse in price. There is no mechanism to adopt the use as a currency. Whereas with cpu-only PoW, the currency gets pushed out via home-scale mining to anyone with PC. The home-scale miner is selling it to the wealthy. This is night and day in terms of currency distribution.
Whereas with cpu-only PoW, we are continuously diluting the wealthy (at a small, reasonable annual debasement) to get the coin into consumer's hands.
Do the wealthy play an important role? Yes indeed. They invest after the early adopters (another reason you don't want the IPO at the very start). Balance. Balance. Balance. PoS doesn't have it.
Quote
Scams abound now.
XCP is the antithesis of a scam. It was distributed by proof of burn, even the developpers had to burn their BTC to get some. It's arguably the fairest coin distribution since Bitcoin.
Ditto logic I wrote above. Thus they are not currency distributions. It appears they are some genre of pyramid scheme (for a lack of a better term to describe greater fool selling of what can't be a currency to people who think it can be).
Quote
I thought it was a PoW coin. Are they doing a land rush sale of a pre-mine? Or do you mean invested in mining it at launch?
They are doing both. They will issue X ether via an IPO and then 0.4*X ether will be distributed each year via PoW.
Maybe they should read this post of mine.
Any way, I think there comes a time for me to stop arguing with words.