Andytoshi, a core developer and mathematician here in Austin, said to me over lunch: "But this is not Bitcoin!". He elaborated to say that a single mint was opposite of what Satoshi wanted. Andytoshi was not then persuaded by my argument that a peer-verified nomadic mint solved the problem of trusting a central mint.
My intent in introducing KSI is it is an example of a design along the same lines where
a) a central "mint" can be trusted but verified by peers
b) peers can be trusted because their transactions must signed by the central mint, so you can have a canonical blockchain (blocktree?)
c) there's no replaying of the blockchain possible thanks to information partitioning, but integrity can still be checked by everyone by verifying the hierarchical hash tree calculations.
If you make the mint nomadic, and you add public chaos to handicap anyone who somehow could forecast the blockchain, I think you would have something better than Bitcoin.