Geniuses simplify things...
While merely highly intelligent people complicate the shit out of everything...
(See Ripple, most 2nd Gen Crypto Assets, etc).

Twitter is genius... because it's dead simple.

This is why PeerShares could sweep away the Pretenders...
Sunny knows that "good enough" and "dead simple" wins.

What you called a pointless distinction earlier is not pointless, because of the ratios of hardware to electricity. I think I almost had a good point.

You didn't refute my point at all.... If miners receive 1% (which is an underestimate, it is more along the lines of 9% at its current rate) when the price of bitcoin goes up then there compensation goes up regardless of added efficiency or security of the network. So if you have a spike from $1 to $100,000 the cost of securing the network went from 10 cents to $1,000. Except we are not longer in that price range which is why the cost of mining is now more than $500 million.

Also if Sunnys involvement in PeerShares is the clincher, you might want to reevaluate your position. In a recent chat discussion between Sunny King and Bytemaster on peercointalk it seems he was not as involved with peershares as you suggested.

Peercoin is not complete in my view and has some remaining issues, before it can be considered a viable pos-solution, most glaring one being their checkpointing requirement.

I really want to like NXT and even though it is not strictly a technical issue with their particular solution, but I do not like their cloak and dagger behavior with the source-code and only releasing it to peer review after they "feel" the world is ready.

Clout do you think adding cpos to the discussion and/or poll would be advisable or is that proposal still too theoretical?

One little addendum regarding the whitepapers by Daniel Larimer, part of the "security model" in his theories is that of many competing chains and free market choice between them, instead of the other seemingly isolated central blockchain models. While I understand the philosophical ideal of wanting security solely through algorithms, I'm not convinced that this mathematical Elysium is achievable in practice, besides it all hinges on market evaluation by humans anyway. So while not being limited to tapos/dpos I do think the free choice between chains implied in those whitepapers (ByteMaster always mentioned the competing chains when I've heard him explain his concepts) is more versatile than other models.

PS
What's up with all the references to the scores on IQ-tests and drawing conclusions from them? To me those things were more about how long can you fight the boredom and keep focus. Most of the ones I had to fill in even used multiple choice, talk about ridiculous. Multiple choice makes it just about impossible to give the wrong answer.

Although there's no improvement in security in the long run. When someone designs an improved ASIC, the network becomes vulnerable to the danger that an attacker will deploy the new technology first. As the new ASIC is adopted by miners, we return to the status quo. The miners need to keep upgrading, just to stay in the same place both with regard to their revenues, and with regard to network security. As long as technology keeps improving, miners will need to pay for new hardware, and the community will have to pay for that hardware, as well as their electricity costs, either through block-reward inflation or through fees.

Bitcoin uses vote by hashpower and thus everyone is trusting less than 10 super nodes (mining pools).  Try to look at the true nature of what these systems are doing rather than at the marketing spin the BTC community has put on things.

With bitcoin you cannot vote a miner or pool out.  The coin holders have no say at all and only a super minority actually mine bitcoin these days.   

The system is still governed by math, it just operates as 99 small mining pools where the users can redirect their hash power at will and where all mining pools have equal say and take turns.   

After talking with the Nxt developers it is fairly clear that Nxt and DPOS are very similar.  They both deterministically select the next block producer, operate on a fixed absolute block production schedule and support DELEGATING your stake to others.  

The difference lies in how the delegated stake is managed.  In DPOS everyone is delegating at all times and all clients observe behavior.  In DPOS it is possible to vote AGAINST a bad actor and thus nullify their own votes.   This prevents someone from buying up 10% or more of the network and then abusing their 10% in some way.  

Where Nxt has block production proportional to balance, DPOS is 1 block per delegate with a changing slate of delegates that are voted on proportional to stake.   There are limits that prevent concentration in one delegate and the wallets automatically rebalance votes from delegates that get too much.  

Lastly the difference is that all shareholders are paid from dividends without having to do anything.  The delegates take a small cut of the transaction fees.  

I think that Nxt DPOS will be the future as Peercoin has too many issues.

The same is true with PoS.  Yes you have proven that 1% of a large number is larger than 1% of a small number.

It'll be 3% of what it is now. We can hope that 1 BTC doubles in real-world value at least every 4 years to compensate, and it might for a while, but that rate of increase can't continue forever. I am thinking in longer timescales than 20 years here.