r0ach, thanks. The most salient threat isn't double-spending and direct theft. Rather it is the insidious debasement tax taken in the form of a winner-takes-all monopoly on transaction fees for PoW and for DPoS that is the level of funding whales vote for themselves for running witnesses.
Both PoW and (D)PoS systems are just central bank printing machines in an obfuscated form.
I will offer a new design. Let's see what y'all think when the juicy part of the white paper with the new design is published.
I get the point, but I don't think I would call that debasement, more like rent seeking behavior. And yea, if anyone actually can form a cartel or monopoly in crypto, you do have a mirror of the rent seeking behavior central bankers use to extract wealth, or essentially skim off the top until they own it all. This is why they hate serfs using gold and silver, because it's difficult to skim off someone physically holding the currency in their hand and defending it with an AR15.
"Debasing" was more concise and clear than "Leeching". "Renting seeking" is definitely more general. I do state that in the text. I'll try to improve the wording.
I am not against gold and silver, because I do realize they have the quality of being entirely decentralized, but the problem is that no one wants to accept or use them as currency any more. And the people won't be going back because efficient money is preferred by the economy (nature will always choose the system that has more degrees-of-freedom, i.e. higher entropy future[1]). Either things don't get bad enough to require them to, or they get so MadMax that people won't accept anything that can't be traded for food.[2]
But I have a new design to offer that isn't PoW and isn't exactly DPoS.
My design is more like a hybrid of several different things. And in that way, it has new attributes, because the power of each is broken up into separations-of-concerns. Thus each part functions more freely but with less holistic power to do harm.
I am excited to see what the community thinks of my new technology.
My design depends on open source
behavior (not referring to the source code of the software). But open source has the opposite property from politics, in that politics requires all the people to be coordinated. Open source requires only that "given enough eyeballs, all flaws are revealed".
In my design, not everyone has to be coordinated on the same choices. The degrees-of-freedom are unbounded.
There are actual clever technological innovations in my design. It isn't just social engineering. The double-spend security does not depend on open source behavior (economically not any more than PoW does, i.e. that all miners have to validate that which they mine on, lest they may lose their block reward, which really isn't open source behavior because it requires the majority hashrate is monolithically coordinated on validation).
[1]:
https://gist.github.com/shelby3/67111f328822a36beb4cad1a5220eb33 <----
Section 5.1 Dictatorship[2]: Shelby Moore III.
Value of currency has historically been public confidence in it as a reliable unit-of-exchange. Bitcointalk.org, “Precious metals are not useful in a collapse scenario!” thread, post #62, Nov 2, 2016