Quote from: rpietila on April 27, 2014, 04:45:30 PM

Quote from: BldSwtTrs on April 27, 2014, 04:40:27 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on April 27, 2014, 04:33:52 PM

Quote from: BldSwtTrs on April 27, 2014, 04:04:03 PM

Quote from: rpietila on April 27, 2014, 03:21:28 PM

Quote from: Peter R on April 27, 2014, 03:00:36 PM

What about the DPR seized coins? Perhaps these should be redistributed for the "greater good" too?

Since PoS schemes aim to create value out of nothing (cf. alchemy)

Are you disputing the affirmation that value is derived from the usefulness of the network and therefore not from the cost of maintaining the network?

No it's an affirmation that saving doesn't doesn't service the greater good, the act of saving is risky one only saves if there is a future benefit, while one invests or spends one's savings for future benefits. With PoS saving are reward always.

It's like holding a share in a company. Dividends reward people who hold shares in companies who are profitable (ie. which resolve a problem in a efficient way).

Are you stating that shareholders shouldn't earn dividends?

How about you tell - do you think increasing the number of currency units (other things being equal) increases the market cap?

Answer is of course NO, but why is the whole thing then so important?

Of course not, money creation is a value transfer not a value creation.

This value transfer from holders to miners is necessary because miners are doing a service for the network. Holders pay this service by diluting their value via the inflation of the money supply.

But with PoS, holders can accomplish by themselves the very service the miners are doing. Therefore they no longer need to pay miners, they no longer need to see the money supply be inflated and diluting their value. The main point is that PoW is fundamentally inflationnist whereas PoS is truly deflationnist. If BTC-PoS would born tomorrow we can have a money supply which will be forever 12,7 millions BTC, instead of 21 millions with PoW.