this time last year bitcoin went from $90 down to $70 and people were shouting that bitcoin craze was dying out.. then as october approached it went above $100, and then up up up.

you want to know why september-october is so important..

think about these three countries
thailand, costa rica, america.. then click this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year#Chart_of_various_fiscal_years

if your old enough to actually bother paying tax, then you will know

it was only a Ponzi bubble. That is all. A fucking Ponzi bubble. I knew that but I was convinced about those guys saying it was not a Ponzi and I could still buy.

Centralization of Bitcoin seems hard to avoid with how bitcoin mining works. Small companies are able to compete with larger cooperation due to faster decision making, patents on innovations, working climate, and so on. However, I see it very hard to get an edge as a smaller miner competing with larger mining operations, this should in theory make the network end up with only one or a few big miners.

your argument is made on the idea that all proof of work coins are of the same source code and have the same features.. so you can most certainly tell the difference.. the value of say nxt does not fall because 100 new clones of blackcoin came out..(not that they are of the same source).

the value of these coins is derived from the functions and features they provide and also to a very large extent the network effect they command. perhaps only among the straight clones of coin x you have a fair point.. but coin x would not be included in the equation. coin x actually benefits from the many clones because anyone who finds out about the clone would soon enough discover the mother coin leading to further adoption of the mother coin.. look how many people discovered bitcoin because of doge. you are basing your argument outside of the context of the 2.0 landscape in order for your argument to work.

also, imo the more coins that are created the better.. recently a trend has taken off where straight clones fail.. now it is also going the route that even coins written from scratch are failing very early on.. and the reason isnt that they are not innovating, it is that they are not innovating enough. the heat is rising in the altcoin race.. and there are only 2-3 main competitors that have any worth while odds of winning while the others are just filler.. people are starting to see that for a coin to succeed short, medium and long term it must be able to compete with the most innovative of platforms other wise people make a quick buck off the lesser coin in order to build their holdings in the platform they deem as the most likely to succeed and therefore strengthening the grater platform. those who cannot innovate enough, fall severely behind the pack and struggle to gain ground in any meaningful way. this is what negates your argument that a PoS platforms value can be depleted due to "clones" and the low cost of production.

if facebook released their source code and 1000000000 clones appeared that were exactly the same.. would anyone use anything other than the original? no, because that is what everyone is using and therefore gains value from the network effect it commands. just because 1000000 clones of facebook come out, it doesnt mean people become confused about what one to use or what its worth. but the network effect cannot protect something forever if something far superior comes along.. it will for a while but eventually it will be surpassed by the superior tech. look at bebo. it was the first social media to bring social media into mainstream as far as i know.. atleast it was where i live. it lasted a couple years value shot way up but then facebook, the younger better platform can along. it took a while for it to challenge bebo, but by the time it was seen as a genuine threat it was far too late to do anything about it. it was a better more innovative platform long before bebo fell to its knees. bebo could not innovate enough in a short enough time period and therefore facebook stormed the social network arena in a blaze of fire and bebo collapsed, and only remains today as a legacy of social networks.

the only thing holding bitcoin up as top dog right now and for probably a good while longer is its immense network effect which it has from a very long 4-5 year lead on all alts.. whether you like it not, bitcoin will fall just like bebo. and whether you like it or not, a technically more advanced and far more innovate platform is going to pick up where bitcoin left off and take over the globe in a blaze of glory like no other tech has seen before, and its going to be spectacular.

ps.. vested interests are a BITCH

So you're just going to ignore kodtycoon's very valid arguments? PoW does not give a coin value, otherwise there wouldn't be many worthless PoW coins. Just as PoS does not give a coin value, otherwise there wouldn't be many worthless PoS coins.

You are completely ignoring network effects, features, utility, infrastructures, ease of use, communities, innovation, developer dedication & skills, and resources (large market caps to pay for development/infrastructure).

There are many clones of Nxt and most of them are pretty much worthless. Only the ones with large communities and the most innovative ones have even a fraction of Nxt's market cap.

Furthermore, Gold has many other dynamics in play as to how it derives its price, just like cryptocurrencies.

Yeah, that's why I think that the only PoS coin that will work is one that is marketed by a nation state and declared legal tender.

Gold has value because it is PoW.  Mining, securing, and transporting takes calories of energy. PoW should really be called Energy Backed. Energy is what backs the entire global economy. That's why the USD is called the petro-dollar. If money could be backed strictly by ideas, then my idea would be to have money shooting out of my ass.

Completely false statement.