Quote from: jonald_fyookball on December 29, 2014, 03:48:56 PM

Quote from: sumantso on December 29, 2014, 03:47:52 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on December 29, 2014, 03:45:19 PM

Quote from: sumantso on December 29, 2014, 03:38:58 PM

Quote from: cryptogeeknext on December 29, 2014, 03:36:44 PM

Quote from: sumantso on December 29, 2014, 03:27:38 PM

Like it or not, some variation of PoS is going to dominate. The general opinion is slowly being aware that the money given over to the electricity and the hardware companies is better off being utilized to develop the coin itself.

No one is forced to give any money to anyone, people exercise their own choices.
Competition requires energy, no-competition doesn't.

So which of the competition is better suited - the one which is spending resources to keep the network running, or the other which is using the same resources in improving itself?

Again, confusing security model with distribution model.

Security costs depend on distribution rewards (issuance of new coins),
not whether the coin uses PoS or PoW.

You can buy miners and spend electricity and earn coins.
You can go to an exchange, spend money and buy coins.

Not really sure your point. Mine is that cryptos like NXT can claim lower security cost because they aren't issuing new currency. Very simple.

I doubt thats what NXT is claiming, though I can't attest to that. I was thinking more is terms of the Bitshares model where new coins are generated by elected delegates and awarded to all those working to develop and improve the coin.