Quote from: maxsinner on May 26, 2014, 08:54:49 AM

Quote from: Ryven Cedrylle on May 25, 2014, 09:02:26 PM

Since we're throwing around quotes, let me add one of my own: "A problem can not be solved on the level of thinking that created (identified) it." - supposedly Einstein but really, who knows.

I'm kinda surprised that anybody interested in cryptocurrency thinks that a technology can be stopped. It can't. You can make something ASIC-resistant, but you're really only delaying the inevitable. Eventually someone will make an ASIC for your algorithm (or 11 or whatever) and probably faster than you think it will. While I have previously been quite adamant about disliking PoS-only for DigiByte, I think what Fluttercoin is doing with its PoW/PoS/PoT hybrid is stepping in the right direction. PoW keeps a coin's hashrate good but leads to technology-centralizing. PoS counteracts tech advantages with its minting vs. mining alteration but leads to asset-based centralization and discourages transactions. PoT doesn't make any sense on its own, but as a counterweight to PoW and PoS, it has value. The coin that beats the problem of ASIC centralization is, in my estimation a basic Scrypt coin (so a large community can mine with small ASICs at no cost or slight profit) with PoW/PoS/PoT/Po?/Po?/Po?/Po? where the last four are Proofs not yet invented. Don't try to fight technology with technology. Fight it with economics.

PoT makes perfect sense. Encourages spending AND merchant adoption, since PoT works not only for the sender but also for the receiver AND secures the block-chain. I have both FLT and DGB in my shortlist of potential 200-500k cap coins to go to 2mil-4mil cap in the near future.

I like PoT since PoT is one of the great innovations that benefits each parties.