The cost of attacking Bitshares is extremely low. It has already been done once.
I don't get it, What "attack"? Did his delegate not sign blocks? Censored transactions?
Spreading FUD is a human factor. I don't see how the network
was under attack (I skimmed the post. I may have missed it).
Imo, PoW is evolving into a centralized system but it is still more decentralized than DPoS because it is mathematically provable through PoW that the chain is secured by a verifiable amount of hashpower.
Huh? How does centralization have anything to do with the network's hashpower and/or mathematical validity?
Sure, anyone can start a Bitcoin mining farm, but does that happen? On the contrary, mining is centralized than ever.
misleading people to think the system is "decentralized" and "Safer than a Swiss bank account."
Obviously any blockchain (if prototyped correctly) is more secure than a swiss bank account.
Neither Bitshares delegates or Bitcoin miners can steal your money, but a bank can since the ledger is only accessible to it and it has free reign over it.
It seems to me he's opposed to a non-POW network, whatever it is, Not Bitshares specifically.
Just to reiterate, to "attack" Bitshares, you would need 100% honest-seeming delegates.
To attack Bitcoin you'd need 51% (although less, bet meh) of the network's hashing power.
You can't know if a person owns more than one delegate - granted.
You can't know if a person owns more than one mining pool either.