I don't think you really understand what your talking about here. In particular, you've used a kind of warped logic to draw your readers to a slightly ludicrous comparison that likens POS to Fiat.
First of all, the "trust us" aspect of the fiat money system comes from centralised brokering of liquidity for debt through a counterparty infrastructure. This is nothing like crypto - whether POW or POS. You've confused the method of distribution with the method or creation.
For example, when the EU, the ECB and the IMF made huge loans to Greece through the European Financial Stability Facility, they created a large amount of fiat money which was levered up off a 20% capital base. Greece underwrote the 'value' of that new liquidity by signing a debtor agreement following which the money finds its way into the general economy. At that point, the fiat banking system are in a position of centralised trust from the holders of fiat currency, since if the debtors (Greece) default, the banks can no longer underwrite the currency's value even though they are the issuers.
I like you , i wrote a long response - but i wont post it at this time, i'd rather explain it to a large audience.
however i can break down your argument simply;
- you don't understand what "money" is.
- the trust element in a fiat system relates to the people that are working in a productive capacity, you ironically refer to Greece, how are the people doing there at the moment? ha ha. (back to you)
- since posting here I refined the explanation on the blog to more clearly explain Po$ Proof of Scam, to try to save some of this confusion.
http://kolinevans.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/on-po-proof-of-scam-defining-the-rational-crypto-currency-exclusive-socioeconomic-dynamic/ - word press said it was getting quite a bit of attention i'm not sure what that means?
- i think i have repeated my self a bit and so will further review.
- (Po$) is not (PoS) you have referred to PoS many times i can't see the relevance?
- (Po$) is not a fiat system as the document clearly states so i can't see your relevance here (Po$) clearly borrows the "trust" element that is related to distribution in the same and similar manner that fiat systems institute a "human trust" element for the control of ALL the aspects of issuance and supply.*
* but thank you for helping me clarify that.
The only difference between POW and POS (in the case of NXT) is that one guy mined the whole damn currency supply and then used the market to distribute it instead of CPU cycles to distribute it. There are pro's and cons of this approach, but once it's "out there" it isn't much different from POW generated coins in its nature.
great comment and nails it! - so in essence the one guy that mined the "whole damn currency supply" shifted the "One cpu one vote" "Trustless" random distribution system to a "trust us" or in this case if it really was one guy, "trust me" I will distribute this to the market by selling it at a "fair market value" - but then made his own exchange and again said "Trust me" "i own it all but this volume is "normal market volume" that is bidding up this "fair market value".
: D
don't get me wrong, Po$ is still ahead of a system that has literally no block-chain like "Ripple." - why? well because when the tide goes out on NXT (i.e see my other comments) and it goes to less than a fraction of a cent ( your stated Base money value) as education moves into the market, then it will slosh around as a "dead scamcoin" ( not my words) and
IF PoS proof of stake isn't completely flawed. it might have market value far in the future.
its just not a very good model - don't take it personally.
With both approaches you end up with large holders because the number of people mining or trading crypto currencies is tiny. 73, 730 or 7300 makes no material difference to the ultimate outcome of distribution.
The real hypocrisy of this criticism of POS is that in the global scheme of things, POW is justifiably subject to all the same accusations. It's mined by a tiny group of people in the context of the global population and then dumped on markets and sold at multiples of its mining cost to unassuming speculators. Perhaps if you gave 50 MILLION people an ASIC and made sure they mined 1 second from launch, you might be on sounder ethical ground for your little crusade.
absolutely not - you are completely wrong but i will explain at a later date., because this relates to Crypto decentralized economic complexities.
- oh btw way i did advocate a model like that (the 50 million ASIC) for a "government distributed crypto, that broadly adhered to "neutral control. - its a rushed and messy document but here it is :
http://forum.qrk.cc/thread/1512/understanding-neutral-control-principal-government
