This interview was from before the delegate system was used as a kickstarter for BitShares businesses. I would like to hear his updated thoughts.
Definitely since BitShares has changed so much and also there was no discussion about DPOS and its Oracle functionality which facilitates bitUSD and other price feeds. BitShares does not need Andreas, it can stand on its own due to its properties. Winning over Andreas is purely a marketing exercise which would hugely benefit the BitShares network. Notice at the end of the podcast the poll which include Andreas Antonopolous as a high result next to family and friends introducing people to crypto-currency.
So in this podcast (https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-129-dogeparty-and-delegated-proof-of-stake
) there were several issues raised against BitShares and DPOS. Dan was under fire a little and I think he did a great job. However it seems that Andreas, Adam and Stephanie were left unconvinced. I will try to address the issues as best as I understand.
#1 Dan erred attacking Proof of Work by saying that users have no say and that miners control the bitcoin network. This is false because bitcoin users can shift to a new blockchain fork as Andreas describes in the Texas 2014 talk linked in the OP: miners are not the source of consensus rather users are the soure of consensus and they pool their consensus by choosing which networks to connect with.
The best point to highlight for BitShares is that consensus, security and transaction processing with DPOS is much cheaper versus POW. This is exactly what Dan describes in the podcast. But trying to attack the quality of consensus, security and transaction proecssing of bitcoin although perhaps valid is difficult since bitcoin is working well and it is the leading network.
#2 Isn't DPOS like a Congress and so requires public delegates who are susceptible to corruption?
Dan's answer is good: the delegates don't have that much power as individuals and the constitution is the code. The strength of DPOS is that it is adaptable. Regarding delegate publicity, reputations can be earned anonymously and if it is perceived by stakeholders as a weakness then stakeholders will vote for delegates who are skilled at remaining anonymous.
#3 Isn't BitShares a pre-mine and therefore an unfair distribution?
This is an error of Andreas and a common one against alt-coins. As such this is a serious PR issue for BitShares so we need to learn to articulate good responses and helpful metaphors. Actually as Dan replies there is nothing wrong with pre-mines or one person owning all the original units. Obviously in the beginning the value of each unit is zero or close to zero. From there the free market and network effect drive the value and distribution of the unit. This is exactly how bitcoin began: those developers and enthusiasts who were bitcoin early adopters could cheaply purchase massive amounts of bitcoin. There is no better way to start a currency.
Attempts to evenly distribute units to all economic actors (e.g. Aurora Coin) don't work. In the boardgame Monopoly all players are given an even distribution of units which is the fairest way to start the game. There is no problem adding new units into the game as long as all players are given the same amount of new units. But in a real economy the number of players is never knowable so this kind of equal distribution cannot be implemented. The only alternative is the network effort and free market meaning early adopters will become wealthy if the system is a success. This is healthy as long as all users maintain equal opportunity and early adopters do not secure a protocol advantage so they have special powers (such as Ripple where only existing delegates can select new delegates).
As Dan said bitcoin mining does nothing to improve "fairness". Mining rewards are given in exchange for security and transaction processing and not for the purpose of evenly distributing units to make all economic actors equal. Therefore mining distribution is still a function of the free market and the network effect.
Andreas has an unaswered question on this issue: "How do you scale that [unbalanced situation of initial distribution] to 7.5 million people?"
The question has incorrect assumptions but anyway the answer is: the network effect and the free market.
#4 How did the initial distrubition change over time given that the proto shares were initially meant to represent only 10% of the supply?
Again the incorrect assumptions of this questions are that there is a problem with the free market and the network effort for distribution of coins. The number of units created in the beginning is immaterial and purely a technical issue depending upon desired divisibility of the units. If it was 10% or 100% it wouldn't make a difference as long as there are no special powers associated with different kinds of units.
#5 Isn't BitShares better suited for corporate governance and internal use and not suited as a global currency?
Again Dan answers this well. Andreas fails to see that a currency is a kind of company so far as there is an administration required to manage the network of the currency.
#6 Opportunity missed. I think one of the big things that DPOS has that is often missed is that Delegates can act as Oracles to verify external data. That is the key benefit which allows bitUSD to operate and which can facilitate crypto-currency P2P exchange. This benefit should always be mentioned when discussing BitShares.
BitShares early adopters need to become well versed in understanding its critisims and there is great marketing benefit in winning over key crypto-currency personalities such as Andreas.