Will be one to watch. Would it be Scrypt-based, or an offshoot of scrypt?

Heavily scrypt based (scrypt with four different secure hash algorithms and two different stream cipher algorithms for fault tolerance and ASIC resistance in arranged in the blockchain in a randomized order)

Yes.  The PoS system described should be difficulty to game and has an enforced reward below that of PoW, so PoW should always be the dominant source of coins.

One shortcoming with PoS as I described is that if someone buys 40% of all the coins and hoards them, they will be eligible to get a bunch of stake blocks all at the same time.  If they could spam them fast enough they might be able to fork the network briefly, but only for four minutes average at most (and if something weird is going on inside the chain of blocks, clients should reject them anyway).

I should probably add to the whitepaper that (1/129600) * total number of coins is the minimum number of coins required to grab a stake block, but that if you have multiples of that are all the same age you can grab a bunch consecutively if you so want to.  I assumed that the wallet would be implemented to do this automatically, but it may not have been clear from the whitepaper that this happened.

I guess you can also enforce throughout the network to only accept one stake block maximum every two minutes and reject the rest to help even out the distribution of stake blocks over time.

Edit: Yeah, I see a weakness now.  There should be some sort of measure to ensure a minimum time between PoS blocks of 1.5 or 2.0 minutes.  I don't think it'll be that hard to enforce -- just make the network reject the PoS blocks if the timestamp is too close to that of the previous timestamp.

Thanks.  I think it's best to go over the theory really hard before even trying to put it into code.  I want to try to stick as closely to the original BTC code as possible.

If Sunny King or other PPC folks want to chime in, I'm kind of curious as to how PPC prevents brief forks using rapid bursts of stake blocks.  The network time method seems like the easiest and most foolproof method to implement, but I'm wondering if there's some kind of major problem with it.

It's double entendre of this and a reference to my first idea for a coin, Memcoin (which turned out to be a bad idea because you don't want to use high memory scrypt for a blockchain PoW hash).

How would you prevent someone from messing around with the democratic voting system? Would they be able to game it using multiple clients/computers/VMs?

There are ppl out there who have access to large blocks of ips. If i put my mind to it i can borrow18 ranges of ips for a month or two. I have done it before and always have access to many24s.

Are you sure you want to enforce it like that?

Because all other crypto-currencies don't have a hard limit.  Bitcoin blocks could be found 1-2 minutes away from each other and  that's allowed.  You should control stake blocks off of the difficulty it is too mine them.

It's based off of hashing right?  It's luck and the difficulty factor determines when the blocks are found.  Having Pow, PoS, one after another would be very unlikely.

Democracy is based on PoW blocks and PoS blocks.  So, hashing power and also, and stake power is used for votes (it's in the whitepaper).
Each block contains a vote.

Okay, for PoS.  So unlike PPC, your shares only gain value if you find a block.  (right?).  With PPC your coinstake accrues.

And the voting system sounds really cool.  But, we won't be able to see it implemented for 30 years.