I support this 1000%! This needs to happen.
If the attack is successful, it demonstrates a need to modify the structure of Bitshares to be secure against it. This is important to know, and its much better for it to happen now while Bitshares is new and still small, than later on.
If the attack is unsuccessful, it increases confidence in the DPoS system.
There are several ways you could try to attack:
* Execute a successful double spend.
* Execute a nothing at stake attack: Buy devshares, use the stake to vote in delegates, sell the devshares, and then use the delegates to be malicious in some way.
* Install many paid delegates and then have them conspire to not be able to be removed from office, even if voters want them out.
* Install many paid delegates, produce no of value, but have them remain in office. (Sybil attack).
If the result of the attack is that the attacker loses a significant amount of money (relative to the cost of the shares bought to execute the attack), and the disruption to the network was not catastrophic, I would consider it an unsuccessful attack. After all, in Proof of Work once could also rent tons of hashing power and use it to perform a 51% attack, but if this is costly and not sufficiently disruptive then its not a big weakness. If the same thing occurs in DPoS then its not a real vulnerability, especially if the spend value ends up in the hands of shareholders/traders of BTS.
Note: I suspect that you might be able to execute an attack where you get many paid delegates elected and then sit there and do nothing and collect pay, MUCH more easily in devshares than in Bitshares. Bitshares has actual value, and shareholders are fairly watchful, so any paid delegates come under scrutiny. They already fired blackwavelabs after not seeing an update after 3 weeks.
Devshares is very cheap and thus it is quite possible that no one would care.