Their investments in Bitcoin, obviously.

If you say so, there are no other options but to comply

I put the idiotic assumption in bold.
I guess you never heard about the concept of competition and how it helps any industry stay honest and innovating.

Sounds like a perfect one-liner description of Bitcoin.
PoW as it's implemented in Bitcoin is both inefficient and vulnerable.
Some PoW are still inefficient but at least much less vulnerable.

Spoetnik now whines that people attack him, while it's he who calls people idiots in his lengthy posts. Somebody should kick him in the balls, please, I believe it's the only thing left that can bring him back to reality

The difficulty will follow the price, there is no other way.

Sure there is a lag between those, but sooner or later bank loans taken to buy ASIC equipment have to be paid back.

He won't tell. He'll give you a several pages long post calling you an idiot or something )

Now let's see if it will only be for one or two difficulty changes ) My prediction it will be more than two.

Bitcoin is not backed by anything.

'Backed up' by something means a currency can be converted to a fixed amount of the underlying asset. There is no such thing in Bitcoin. Some people say that it's backed by electricity. No, it's not. You can't convert a bitcoin to a fixed kW/h of electricity.

Backed by something also means the currency is centralized by the backer's ability to honor commitment to redeem the currency for an underlying asset. As far as I know no decentralized mechanism of redemption exists, please someone correct me if I am wrong. What can give Bitcoin and other crypto currencies value is demand for use cases. The more use cases - the higher the demand and the price.

A group chat, like skype group chat is one big missing feature. A group conference call would be nice to have as well. In short, there is still a lot of work to do to make this into a great product from the beta it is now. It will take a good part of 2015 to complete all the essential features. But if those are successfully implememented, combined with the crypto currencies built in, this will be a truely unique product that will market itself when the public are ready for cryptos, and this can't happen in the first crypto currencies bear market which should run for another 10-11 months. This time should be used wisely to build the technology and smooth out all the rough edges for 2016 when the public are finally ready.

As much as people would want to value it at, if they manage to find unique use cases for it. Bitcoin is in the same shoes. I didn't read the rest of your post, sorry, too lengthy.

Pseudo-value is just your perception. For many people Bitcoin only has this pseudo-value too. Anything that doesn't have intrinsic value (stuff that you can eat, make tools of, burn for heating, wear, etc., you get the idea) only has a pseudo-value or rather let's say, artificial utility value, which is unique use cases people invent to increase the value. In that sense Dogecoin is as good (or as bad if your perception is so inclined) as Bitcoin. One example of utility value: people need fiat because they pay taxes in fiat, that's one use case of fiat that no other kind of money can replace.

Bitcoin still doesn't have unique use cases after almost 6 years of running, all it has is the hyped ego of its holders, who look down upon other crypto currencies as if Bitcoin is some kind of holy grail. It is not. Most non-geek normal people don't see value in it, because all they can do with Bitcoin, they can as easily do with their fiat. If Bitcoin doesn't solve the issue of finding unique use cases, it's doomed. If Dogecoin doesn't find them, it's doomed too. They both are in the same shoes.

You should make a distinction here between legal scammers and illegal scammers

Expecting success one month after launch is naive and immature. We're also in the first bear market in crypto currencies by the way, things are going to be pretty slow on all crypto fronts for the next 10-11 months. There is not much capital and adoption moving to cryptos until then, it will be a complete washout of the weak and impatient hands that crowded this market at the end of last year.

Those who say they are scammers don't understand the meaning of the word 'scam'.
They are not scammers, they issue a centralized currency, that's all.
Issuing a centralized currency doesn't make one a scammer, but there is no innovation in it (governments and private companies have done this for centuries) and it goes against the idea of crypto currencies.

Yes, please search my posts for Myriadcoin, I've always supported its idea. It was designed to fix Bitcoin's flaw of centralization and 51% attack. Here is my most recent post on it:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=855877.msg9534178#msg9534178

If Bitcoiners truely cared about technology and making PoW as secure as possible, there you go, a fine example of how Bitcoin code can be modified or Myriadcoin can be new Bitcoin. But no, bitcoin miners only care that they recoup their ASIC investments, and that's understandable and all, but when they try to cover these vested interests with false claims that PoW is secure and PoS is not, moreover, when they claim that Bitcoin implementation of PoW including the large but centralized mining network is the most secure and oh, so fair, this just stinks of bull.

Myriadcoin is a prime example of how PoW can be made an order of magnitude more secure, but wait, then those sha256 ASIC farms become unprofitable. I am all for the most secure technology, but Bitcoin just doesn't have that security any more. If it was converted to something like Myriadcoin (code), now that would be a different matter. I have been supportive of Myriadcoin technology for quite a while. I don't own Myriadcoin, I did own some in the past. I just don't see miners caring about technology, that's why I think PoW is a short-term play, and that's exactly why nothing will change in Bitcoin algorithm.

Told ya

Whichever is better, PoW or PoS is fine with me, there is no bad news for me here, you're wrong.
You're right that as long as it's robust, efficient and secure, that's all that matters.
Please proceed to discuss with other members as we have found consensus )

Anything is possible in theory, but in reality Bitcoin will stay as is, mark my words. Thus this discussion is pointless. You can see that it's pointless from very few people participating, all the early adopters are happy with the status quo. The rest listen to them and never question their authority, end of story. And you're wrong, there is no bad news for me here.