I still do not get the difference between TF and DPoS. They seem equivalent to me. Just newspeak so to say.

This attack does not apply to DPOS...

I agree, there needs to be an alternative to the current domain registration system and ICANN monopoly.  What makes your dotp2p.io superior to Namecoin though? I am quite curious about it, and sounds like a good idea. 

Would somebody be so kind as to explain to me what the difference is between Transparent Forging and DPoS?

You haven't eliminated the fact that there is absolutely no reason not to sign all possible chains in event of a fork.  It is just a small step in the right direction, albeit at the expense of larger txs.  Bitcoin in it's short history had had ~40M txs. Adding 32 bytes to each transaction would have bloated the blockchain by another 1.2 GB.

Nothing at stake covers a lot more than that.  One can perform a reorg with no cost by simply acquiring private keys which at one time had (past tense) a majority of the stake.  Accounts which have no value have worth to an attacker for what they once had.  Nothing at stake also applies to the concept of selfish mining.  There is no reason to not continue your chain when you lose a race against a superior block.  There is a chance you will out mine/mint/forge the rest of the network.  In NXT when you forge a block which is the best at current height but doesn't enable you to forge the next block (due to incompatible block signature) there is no reason to not use computing power to try and find an alternative which enables you to forge the next one as well.   The chance may be low but with no cost it would be foolish to not attempt it.   With PoW there is a real cost by trying to extend an inferior chain and that cost drives the network to reach a consensus quicker.  Inferior chains are abandoned and the network aligns around the best chain not out of some need to do the "right thing" but because it is prohibitively expensive to do anything else.   With no cost, forks will last longer, and reorgs will be deeper.  That is just from honest but profit maximizing miners.   Attackers with a minority of the stake can generate short lived chains that are better than the majority.  With PoW those attempts have a real cost and unless the amount which can be double spent is significant the cost outweighs any gain.  When the cost of an attempt is nothing there is nothing to lose by trying.   Most of the time the attacker will fail but those failures cost nothing so any successful double spends even if rare are profitable.

So saying "put a hash of a recent block in the tx and nothing at stake is a strawman" misses the larger context.  If there is no cost to attack the network there is no reason to NOT attack the network.

Yet, the elephant in the room is the nothing at stake issue at this point.  Or seems to be anyway.

is assymetric information launching that on bitshares/protoshares?

or is this another guy?

If you want money that doesn't use energy, use gold. But wait, it's heavy and takes a lot of energy to move. It must be stored securely, that requires a lot of energy too.

Money must be based on energy. The USD is based on oil, which served it well for a long time. Nowadays acquiring oil is getting messy. We need an alternative to the petrodollar. Modern economics has evolved into sophisticated use of balance sheets that create efficiency of scale for corporate profitability. Our focus on an energy backed currency makes this possible.  Financialization and the ever increasing layers of money abstractions depend on a growing energy supply. This is a good thing and why you are not living in a third world country.

Work must be done to add value to that money. The Bitcoin algorithm does the jobs currently held by firms like Arthur Andersen, HBC, the Federal Reserve, and other such reputable institutions. It does the bookkeeping as transparently as you want it, but also with extreme efficiency. Bitcoin does not require large executive bonuses, bailouts, or bail bondsmen.

PoS is anti-industrial. It doesn't promote commerce nor capitalism. That's why the Bitcoin economy is growing and the PoS coins are merely hoarded by false escaping princes of Africa. PoS economies would probably be useful in dictatorial regimes which force its subjects to use them under the threat of violence.

PoS = proof of stake and PoW = proof of work.  They are two different mechanisms that can be used for achieving consensus in peer-to-peer networks.  With PoS, consensus is formed by those holding stake; with PoW, consensus is formed by those doing work. 

You can dance around this fact as much as you like, but that's what it comes down to Mgburks77.  The question is which mechanism will the market prefer?

I would actually like to see a PoS alt-coin and I believe that through blockchain mergers of like-minded alt coin communities one can grow to challenge litecoin.  This will help us answer these questions empirically, rather than through hand-waving debates that this thread is evidence of. 

I think it would be proper to call this PoS alt bitshares instead, for it is no longer a coin.  Dividends are awarded to share holders for holding stake, rather than to miners for doing work.  Arguments are settled based on how many shares one holds, rather than by how much work one performs. 

"Representatively fair"?  The implied exchange rate between MSC and BTC was very clear.  If you can't do the math, it's your own fault.

I feel bad for MSC buyers who got stuck with them.  They are the ones who got screwed here.

Fortunately, I did not partake in this little charade, but now I understand why the AngelShares/BitShares fundraiser/IPO was so convoluted, with a set amount sold per day in an "auction" format.  It may have been hard to understand at the time, but now I see the wisdom of it.

So basically this will be a Name Squatting Battlefield Paradise (NSBP).

Because either you get outbid by someone else and thus win some small profit, or you win the bid and plan to make a even greater profit by reselling it.

Your only hope as a developer is that the squatters will fight each other so much that it won't be profitable for the last one, or that it will be expansive to squat a lot of domain names.

My prediction is that it will be a big bubble rush and then people will end up with names that they don't even use.

Question 1 : How will you redistribute the paid money to the network, is it by destroying the coins ?

Question 2 : Will you register a TLD (Top level domain) so that people just have to type the address in their browser ? Because otherwise it's prone to failure ! Unfortunately a TLD is quite expansive and is regulated.