What do you mean by that?

You seem to completely disregard the likely possibility that the author had an optimized GPU miner before the launch.

I understand your point of view, but such philosophical arguments don't affect the success of a coin. It's like saying "don't write closed source software, it's bad", that's not going to change anything. Almost all the currencies currently in use are centralized, and before bitcoin there was some research on p2p currencies with limited degree of centralization, say just for registering new users and exchanging coins for other currency. This was all called "cryptocurrency" as well. I think you are biased by bitcoin here.

To the "inflationary reward" remark. I don't think it's easy to predict what kind of reward will lead to inflation, that's all.

Yes, but it's this behavior, this attitude which is at fault here. Of course, if the creators don't have any interest in the coin, it's doomed, independently of whether it hits the exchanges.

Nothing is wrong with centralization. Centralized systems are much more secure in many ways.

Nothing is wrong with any reward whatsoever. Reward is just the payment for supporting the network. It may be that if the network grows its value also grows, and there will be no inflation. You're just assuming very simple models here by saying it's bad.

Nothing is wrong with unbounded number of coins. Indeed it's the bound which is arbitrary and requires justification.

What's wrong about deals with the exchanges? I really don't even understand your motivation for that one.

Testing is a good point.

Or perhaps OP has some litecoins he bought at the peak price.

That’s just like, your opinion, man. You are trying to enforce all altcoins to be copies of bitcoin. Different hash/encryption algorithm is no innovation, if the base software was any good that could be achieved by changing a single line of code. "Bad" list is mostly just your bad feelings.

Because you want to sell faster than the 0.03 guy. Perhaps you expect the price to drop very soon.

Not any mathematical thing requires a PhD. Could be a nice paper, though.

Currently the new coins are only mined to be dumped. Nobody has any other interest in them, not even their creators. If nobody needs them, they're worthless, no matter how difficult they are to mine, or how few of them are there.
The very idea of coin distribution which assigns the bulk of coins to a few early "adopters" (for the lack of a better term, because nobody is really going to adopt it) is absurd. The coins are not backed by anything but wasted time and electricity. The original idea was that the miners support the network, but it was totally perverted and turned into the sole purpose of existence of a coin. Mining is just a way to safeguard against double spend attacks; without actual attackers, or spending, it's pointless.

I don't understand what is the advantage over a simple signature. They were invented exactly for the purpose of source verification.

Bitcoins do not exist as a separate entity, in the network there are only transactions. Each transaction has some other transactions as inputs and a destination address, and it's signed using the sender's key. Stealing means publication of an unauthorized transaction in favor of the thief's address, and the resulting funds are quite usable by the thief, and lost for the original owner, since the transactions are irreversible.

Exactly. If you caught a Trojan tailored for bitcoin, you're pretty much done no matter what you do. There's a thousand ways to intercept your password next time you type it, by patching your bitcoin client for example. Bitcoin is extremely insecure in this respect.

The article speaks about a phishing attack on Mtgox, so your measures will not help in this case. If you will be a victim of such an attack, they could steal your bitcoins stored at the exchange, and possibly also the money.

Is it such a big deal? I don't think it's realistic to expect that coins will ever leave the internet. Make online shops accept it first.

So that the almost empty blocks will get most rewards? This will again benefit early miners.

I also thought about time-based reward, with the motivation to: a) remove the need for difficulty recalculation and b) limit the expansion of hashrate of the network. What about the following idea: blocks are defined by time. All transactions are timestamped by the issuers and block is formed from all transactions which fall within a specified time window since the last block. That way it's useless to start mining before the block 'matures'. Blocks which are broadcasted too early and do not contain all the transactions within the time window will be rejected.

The second one.

Hey guys!

Why don't you expose the bastard?

Go to 'Profile' -> 'Edit', IIRC it should be there.