I kind of agree on 2 fronts.
Little birdy tells me:
-100 is for speed (100 is faster than 1000).
-It also provides 10x the income for one delegate.
Facts of life… no birdie whisperer in my ear.
if you read the thread you will see that it exist's a solution to keep about the same speed... bytemaster: "You are correct, I can randomly select 101 from the top N where N is arbitrarily large."
The income is something crucial that is a fact. We don't want to have to many delegates because then it could be the case that it is not worth to be a delegate!
Like the most NXT forgers right now are loosing money!
But I think it would be a very easy task for bytemaster to find a formula that change the number of delegates in a way that all stay happy...
PS With 101 delegates it is easier to have security issues then with more...
take for example the "init" delegates, it is obvious they are all in one place located. Imagine because of a server problem (I think it happend on one Dry Run) they get all off block production,
imagine now that some more delegates are also on the same place located... What does it mean? That means that immediately the blockchain_average_delegate_participation percentage could
drop from 96% to 30%.... well that would be is not a comfortable feeling...
If we could be sure that each delegate is a different node then maybe 101 would be enough, the problem is that we don't. And we know that multiple delegates are running from one single node. I have for example more than 10 delegates. Assume all my delegates get active and the same is the case with other delegate owners... Yep!!! that means practicaly the nodes could be only 10 and not 101... 10 computers or even less could secure all the network... that's scary don't you think?