That page is pretty embarrassing. There is absolutely no mention of the fundamental flaw in PoS consensus which none of your proposals have addressed: ... If someone is PoS mining it is in their best interest to attempt to concurrently build an honest chain as well as all possible attack forks just in case one of them happens to win. ...
I'm not going to respond to this right now because (a) I don't think it is really a problem (b) it has been discussed extensively elsewhere and most importantly (c) Gmaxwell is being deliberately dishonest. Gmaxwell claims that "none of my proposals have addressed this". Of course, this is false. This is not the first time he has spread such false claims. He cannot support his false claims and he knows this.
I made one other proposal. It was on the wiki until a couple days ago when I replaced it. It had been there, unedited, since I created the wiki.
Recall the rule I proposed:
Hash Difficulty >= Difficulty Target / (Coin-age used to sign block)^( p / (1-p)), where 0 < p < 1.
To make this more secure against periodic double-spends, you can have two block types, A and B, each with their own difficulty target. For A, p=0.2. For B, p=0.8.
The blocks are mined in a deterministic sequence: ABABABAB.... [note: this is an elaboration I introduced later]
Okay Gmaxwell. Explain how your issue occurs in the above system. Otherwise,
admit to being a shameless liar. If you want to have a real discussion, don't start off with a shameless lie.
If someone else is interested in this issue, then feel free to post in the thread on my proposal:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127314.0If you don't start off with slander, then I will respond in detail.