ROFL.  What a complex and wonderful question.

The basic problem is that due to innovation chains need to be separate.  If they were all the same chain it ends up like Bitcoin or Mastercoin/XCP.  The blockchain is seen as a metaphor to a company, so these are all individual companies that you can invest in.

Protoshares allows you to have a stake in any future DAC (Where the DAC honors the social consensus.)  AGS was a way for them to do crowdfunding.  You keep your private key to redeem stakes going forward.

Bitshares X is the first and most ambitious product.  Unfortunately the genesis block was already been decided, but shares will be on the open market soon enough.  Bitshares X has market pegging of assets using something akin to a prediction market.

Next we will see p2p that implements namecoin.

THere is no crypto asset named Bitshares.  Thats pretty much just the term to refer to the ecosystem as a whole, which will be based off the bitshares toolkit and completely open source.

The point here is every asset has its own function like a company.  If they were all on the blockchain nothing would ever get done because of competing requirements.  Also, it would never work with the distribution of shares.  This lets entrepreneurs innovate just like a real company.

well, i read what deepweb wrote, and basically its the same way darkcoin works, so far i have not seen the specific need for a larger amount in those nodes, so im guessing it would be easier doing an attack on the system by running alot of nodes

 I guess its means "I dumped DRK when I should have HODL"

any guesses when the node payments will be 100% 

The other attacks you describe all derive from the fundamental reason I declared all non-proof-of-work systems to be insecure back in April.

My logic was mathematically fundamental. The input entropy set is quite deterministic and well known and thus can be preimaged. For example, accumulating a lot of coin-days-destroyed and then targeting them in clever ways to subvert the security.

The randomness (entropy) of each proof-of-work is fundamental and mathematical and it can not be preimaged. It can only be surely defeated with > 50% of the network hash rate. Note I recently offered what I believe to a solution to the selfish-mining attack (the one at hackingdistributed.com that claims 25 - 35% attack).

I am skeptical that you can characterize all possible attack vectors of proof-of-stake in one coherent mathematical proof. Thus you will not know formally what the security is; instead a list of adhoc attacks and counter-measures.

Nevertheless I am not bagging on Peercoin. Everyone should be free to decide for themselves which coin they prefer. Perhaps there are unknown attacks on Bitcoin as well, yet I am somewhat comforted by the clear math for security of proof-of-work. I will not say I will never be convinced to support a non-proof-of-work coin, I will correct myself if someone explains such a system convincingly. It is on my TODO list to study more Peercoin.

Edit: Perhaps coin-days-destroyed in some attack vectors motivates not transacting for long periods of time.

Here is one with miner mentality.

You just shook my knowledge and belief,
right now selling all of the ANC, and you set buy order,
then I will buy DRK, total anonymity with only 2 millions premined   

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.700

I find it interesting that Dev Promises get the front page while tangible action for 5 months didn't...

Hmm. Interesting. I would have thought that they would have been involved with Bytecoin since it was the first CN coin, right?

They did all that work inventing this novel technology and haven't made any obvious attempt to gain from it yet?