Please know that a perfect system for freedom of speech actually obligates anonymity. E.g. elections in democratic societies are anonymous.
Uhh the people may cast a vote anonymously, but they are still registered, and the politicians certainly aren't anonymous.
Are you suggesting that the developers of a cryptocurrency should be compared to politicians?
Now with the development of a public good, like a software infrastructure, the creator only has the obligation to release enough information for things to get peer reviewed. And by being open source, ppcoin also has full filled that requirement.
Whatever, this is just a rationalization. I'm not saying it's a requirement to be known, but the fact that every single "leader" of these crypto knock offs have chosen to be anonymous (except coblee, I think), and it's no coincidence that every single knock off is a pyramid just like the original. Quite debatable that it is a public good, after all, when there is so much potential wealth transfer to be had.
The minting rate is biased towards early adopter profits. However, AFAIK that's a necessity, since it provides an incentive to invest into mining infrastructure at an accelerated rate. The public good aspect is not related to the wealth transfer in bootstrapping the currency, but to it's sustained features.
Which also reminds me of one of the fundamental problems of cryptocurrencies which still has to be resolved. The reward system does not have incentives for cryptocurrency maintenance and improvement. The only incentive developers have is to implicitly benefit from the super-early adopter advantage and hold on to those shares until the cryptocurrency has matured and they can simply act benevolently. However, that doesn't protect the currency from being abandoned by the core developers (pump&dump).
I think they tried to fix this with devcoin.
