If he was to try and convert it entirely to your system, it seemed to me like it would easily suffer from permanent preemption or constant service outages from government powers attacks. I'm not really sure how you get past that issue. Profitable PoW just seems harder to attack by irrational actors than unprofitable PoW on an unpartitioned system.
If the government wants to take down a coin, they can always do it even for Bitcoin. But that is a nuclear option, because there is no direct profit to 51% attacking a coin.
Whether the mining is profit or not, is irrelevant to the profitability of attacking a coin. The profitability of mining enables economies-of-scale to centralize the coin, which helps enable attacks. What you are erroneously claiming is that by overpaying for mining, then it is more secure than by paying consumerately to the level of transactions for unprofitable mining. But the latter may be 1000X more popular, thus have a higher hashrate (and use much less electricity per transaction as well as being decentralized).
Society needs for digital currency to work (which it can't if it is centralized because
centralized shit always fails), so that society doesn't collapse into a Dark Age. I have to believe society will limit government, else we can all kiss our current quality of life goodbye.
Really you guys are clueless about my design and why it will work. And I like it that way, so you can't copy it.
Apparently Satoshi agreed:
>[Lengthy exposition of vulnerability of a systm to use-of-force
>monopolies ellided.]
>
>You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.
Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of
freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled
networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be
holding their own.
Satoshi