Hacking all delegates is more unlikely than hacking discus fish and ghash mining pools. All delegate identities and IPs are not known, making this even harder.. Not to mention having to hack 51 servers compared to 2.
Yes, hacking 51 delegates and hacking discus fish and ghash mining pools is possible but both are unlikely to happen

I don't hear this brought up very often, but Bitcoin could be attacked much cheaper and easier than building a farm or hacking the large mining pools. All it would take is two computer savvy gunmen. Send them to the discus fish and ghash servers, force them at gunpoint to log into the servers, and bam.. 51% attack successful at the cost of only 2 guns and life in prison (IF they are caught.) With DPoS you would need 51 gunmen. I'm sure there are plenty of computer savvy (savvy enough to run a script) poor people in the world that would do this on the promise of someone taking good care of their family and kids.

I don't know of a distribution graph. I have never cared to do the research, as just with Bitcoin or any other currency I know there are many more rich people than me and I have come to terms with that... Life is not fair.

For the record, I was not a PTS or AGS investor, and thus did not receive BTSX in the genesis block. I bought the very small amount of BTSX I own on the free market after it's release. I am just someone that believes in the ideology, technology, and features of Bitshares.. specifically BitsharesX.

The distribution is contained within the genesis block though, so if someone wanted to make some sort of chart that would be cool. The only thing you can really calculate is initial distribution via the genesis block:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dacsunlimited/bitsharesx/master/libraries/blockchain/genesis.json

There will never be any "BTSX Rich Lists" because BTSX forces everyone to use "Bitcoin's best practices" by using a variation of stealth addresses in conjunction with aliases. After the genesis block it is very challenging (nearly impossible?) to track what happens. http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/TITAN

I also don't want to make it seem as if I'm pushing Bitshares here. I would love nothing more if Bitcoin were to adopt some of what I perceive as advantages that Bitshares provides, as I think it would be a step forward for Bitcoin specifically. Ignoring Bitshares for a second.. I think it would benefit Bitcoin and the crypto ecosystem at large. I think that is kokojie's purpose of this thread as well, to improve Bitcoin.. not push an Alt coin.

Distribution is very important and why I am concerned about Satoshi controlling 700k-1 million bitcoin. Whether or not we should trust Satoshi is moot as he could become compromised as his email account being taken proves.

Ahhh, I dug up some more info... http://www1.agsexplorer.com/
Seems like BTSX distribution is better than NXt and bitcoin but their is one glaring concern:

Looks like a lot of funding is going toward supporting the developers directly.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqTwk-e7yzJydDFnQmlkTVlkbWpubnJBbzR2UG5ucnc&usp=sharing#gid=0

Looks like operation costs are burning through ~100BTC a week or 50k usd a week average and they have used half their fundraising BTC. At this rate they can fund operations for 30 more weeks if BTC doesn't increase in value , longer if BTC appreciates....interesting.

Yeah, I was familiar with the whole distribution/investment history of invictus. I just re-listened to this talk with Daniel Larimer about DPOS:
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-129-dogeparty-and-delegated-proof-of-stake

The concern with Bitshares is how quickly they are blowing through their initial investment(50k a week) and what will happen to development and the community when that investment runs out.

I too hope that Satoshi destroyed them as one person holding that much is very dangerous to the marketplace.

I would argue that purely PoS coins do cost something. The different ways of distribution for PoS/consensus I have seen all cost the person who originally received the coins something, except for one distribution model.. giveaways.

The 3 distribution methods where the coins cost money:
IPO - Definitely costs $$$
Proof of Burn - Definitely costs $$$
PoW period then switched to purely PoS - Costs money in the electricity used and time mining in which someone could of mined other cryptocurrencies

The only sketchy non-PoW distribution model that this argument could possibly be applied for:
Giveaways - I admit this is the only category thus far that could fall under your reasoning above, however giveaways have costs in that it takes the developers time, energy, and money, to program and market the cryptocurrency. However, is this perceived cost enough seeing as though the end users didn't pay for these costs themselves? Maybe, maybe not.

In the case of generic country coins that bring no innovation to the table, they have failed on a massive level. In the case of Ripple which bring an innovative approach, it has sustained and even grew in value. I think some cases are different than others, and cost is not an end all be all to a cryptocurrency having value. As long as the crypto provides some benefit, utility, or innovation, AND a larger cryptocurrency isn't already known for this innovation, then it is possible for it to survive and possibly even thrive due to the network effect.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's actually true or not. I agree my reasoning for giveaway coins having value is somewhat sketchy, so feel to prove me wrong. I have actually been using this as a reason as to why I think "spin offs" will not work, because I think Bitcoin holders will dump immediately for profit just like the country coin failures. So I guess I am contradicting myself here... I admit it is complicated.

Although to be fair to my reasoning as to spin offs, specifically the spin off I think is likely to fail is Aethereum. It is mostly due to your reasoning that there is no costs, combined with the network effect of Ethereum in which everyone pretty much sees as the decentralized programming project to beat. So in combination of no cost and the network effect, I think Aethereum will not do so well. If you replaced Aethereum with some innovation or improvement upon Bitcoin that has not already garnered a network effect, it may be possible for the spin off to be a success. I think Stellar will fail for the same reason, there is no cost and Ripple has already achieved a sufficient network effect.

So in summary I suppose I believe that my theory for other giveaways holds true with Spin Offs: As long as the crypto provides some benefit, utility, or innovation, AND a larger cryptocurrency isn't already known for this innovation, then it is possible for it to survive, and possibly even thrive due to the network effect.

As long as the entry is free and everyone with enough resource will get enough coin, the coin's cost will rise, and also comes the risk of one entity controlling more than 50% of hash power, this is how free market works. If you artificially create some barrier to prevent new joiners to dominate the market, then very quickly new people will abandon the game, since they have no chance to win majority

Actually this is also a worry for bitcoin, which have less and less coin generation every 4 years. What is the purpose of investing in one asset while most of this asset is controlled by a few? The good thing with bitcoin is that no matter how much coin you hold, you don't gain more than the coin itself. This will force people to spend the coin sooner or later, thus flattening the coin distribution. If the coins holding will grant you some kind of privilege over new comers, then it becomes a kind of private elite club, and kill the coin over time

The real demand for oversea transaction and merchant acceptance are relatively small compared to investment and speculative demand. Financial investors are usually very smart, any weakness in the distribution design will shun those people away

You are right, but here's the thing: many people have physiologically impaired brains that don't have these intuitive insights. They can't use logic because they are ruled by fear. They can be objectively detected with an MRI brain scan. Many of us can detect them by asking them a few questions unless they have developed strong evasion skills. These are the sociopaths. Don't worry about them. Just ignore them and keep using logic and reason.

I agree. Gold costs a huge amount of investment capital to mine, hence the strength in the long term store of value. bitcoin is the strongest network only because of asic  POW. The 51% attack would cost way too much time and investment with zero financial incentive. Security of the network is the most important foundation of any cyrpto. There's more scalability than security concerns with blockchain bloat and underfunded core devs as the network grows. I assume this will be resolved in time, but am I foolish to do so? POS incentives are for hoarders and savers, which leads to a lack of trading volume. As we see in economics,a country's GDP is what gives intrinsic value to any paper fiat. So incentives for savers prevents growth in value. I say this even though i'm very bullish with btsx atm due to my interest with DACS. Bitcoin will be no1 king of crypto for ever imho. First mover advantage means alot in this game. I will be surprised if bitcoin loses highest market cap position 20 years from now.

why are you so sure about the security of DPos system?