In the case of TaPOS there is no bias toward individuals with larger balances getting more of the fees and therefore it is just as profitable to solo-mine as it is to put it in a pool.  You don't get penalized for being offline (for less than a year) and thus when you do get online you can collect more fees when you do solve a block. 

Without any profit motive, trusting your coins to a 3rd party seems like a big risk to take.

that makes sense.

Did you check out the links and posts that were posted in the nxt thread as an answer to my question?

Skills: Texten; Ökonomische,spieltheoretische Analyse.
Erfahrungslevel: Internet Start up gegründet (Vertrieb, Business Dev.). 
Personalverantwortung: nein.
Cryptowelt: Sehr intensiv seit Dez. 13. Ziel: Crypto Projekte mit großem langfristigen ROI Potential früh (!) entdecken.

Vielleicht sollten wir uns mal Gelegenheit zusammensetzen und mal schauen, ob wir nicht hier in D auch was die Beine stellen können für I³!

Sind ja echt nen paar deutsche hier sehr aktiv. donschoe, sy, xeroc, delude etc....

Da steckt ne Menge Potential.

Zumal wir auch viele Bereiche abdecken würden

haha der lude?

Also see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg5133700#msg5133700 for more information...

I thought the conclusion (somewhere else) was that will not be an option anymore.
Bitshares depends on a social consensus to peg prices so anything that can cause scam accusition (promisis that sound too good to be true, litle explanation, a lot of claims etc. even if that all is possible) is realy bad and can make Bitshares not work. There has to be some traction / consenus at the beginningof pegging prices... TRUST in invictus is VERY important here.

 

What is your assessment on the recent malleability issues?
http://blog.bitbargain.com/post/76337403346/bitcoin-malleability-issue

And what exectly is the reason why bitshares with TaPOS would not have these issues?

I believe that consensus technology can make both civil and penal law irrelevant.   For starters, it can make it possible to come to a consensus about who-dun-it.  Then they can be cut of from economic life.   The police wouldn't dare harm someone or attempt to lock someone up because if they are wrong the market can hold them personally accountable. 

> Such a common consensus would put public opinion above all individual rights (human and civil). The need to objectively prove someone's crime is a good thing. Imagine a case where a member of a minority group is suspected to have committed a crime. If society is heavily split into opposing groups there is no justice and no neutral court to decide (neutral court is an approximation). And who votes? Everyone (in the world, in a nation, in a town?) has to vote or do people only vote when they want to? 

A violent person would eventually be put down in an act of self defense, but everyone always has an opportunity to pay restitution and get back in good standing. Imagine how much crime there would be if every time you enter a business and attempt to buy something they get an instant criminal record and if they do business with you they become liable for paying back your restitution as well?

> The latter example with the business and the reputation makes a lot of sense to me. But its limitation is in that that would be total surveillance again. Everyone knows what bad things you have done. Doesn't feel free probably.
When does self defense begin? If someone would walk around your neighborhood and shoot people (that happens sometimes and reputation loss is the least thing that would keep people from such actions) and there is no entity that is given the right by the community to use force and only self defense is allowed you would have to wait until that guy comes to your house. If you defend your community and bring the violator down because he is a threat to others that is the same acceptance of violance as now its just not centralized. How do you then judge of the "extended self defense" was justified (the example is obviously but what if someone just steals something from an innocent person?). So as long as the is violence there is a need to counter it. If there is no central authority with the unique rigth to use violence everyone has to have the right to use it. Then who restricts the individual's right to use violence?
Also who would arrest the person which the consensus majority thinks has commuted the crime? 

A violent person would thus be in a virtual jail, living in poverty, until they voluntarily check in to a work facility that provides them food, shelter, and clothing while they work to pay off their restitution.   

> I think any violent action (physical or psychological) is irrational in the sense the it worsens your conditions and still people do it. People use violence against themselfs (eg. by abusing drugs) and against others. All conditions are in place today to make that make sure that (mostly, in terms of violence at least) you are very bad of when you harm society. And still people do it. This is not rational and can often not be countered by rational incentives.   

Bottom line is that I believe there are market solutions that eliminate the need to use violence in any way except immediate self defense.  I believe that insurance systems can make victims of violent crime whole while the insurance company focuses on collecting the compensation from the perp.

> Overall my advocatus diabolo position here would be the one of Hobbes. He lived in a violent society in the 17th century with a lot of opposing groups all seeking to achieve the power over the other ones. He gets abstract and describes a situation where everyone has to be afraid of the other one (or the other group) because everyone is equally capable of killing the other one (no one is physically superior enough to dominate the others which can form coalitions if needed). In that situation you better kill the other one before he kills you (preventive self defense). The only solution then is for everyone to agree to give away the individual right to use force to some entity. Nation states are based primarily on this concept and i think it works if that entity is heavily controlled / restricted / supervised. But it is not an optimal concept and I would like to get convinced (by some practical examples/applications that are broken down to the individual's incentives (material or immaterial incentives).