Ok, I've reread it for the third time. I don't think I'm missing anything. Maybe blackmailing isn't a viable business model.
This whole system basically means that you have to proactively protect your account by CDM-mining it from the start. And you better have a large stake. So you have to mine your account when you create it (which was meant for ease of use initially) Then you need enough stake to proactively defend it. And if by some chance you do not have the means to fend of an attacker, you can go to the forums and ask for CDM-defensive backup.
Dan's system just has you register an account and be able to use it. If you want to use the rep system, then you can. You are not forced to understand it though to defensively protect your account name. (The one which you happen to receive funds on.. very important)
I think saying you have to "proactively defend" your account is an exaggeration. You just have to make a transaction that devotes your stake to your account name. You can then have everything in cold storage while your name gains devotion. I think of it more as a reputation metric than as "defending" your account. You are proving that you have invested in the username over time because stake can't be devoted to more than one name.
I don't think anyone is going to attack your username for no reason when you aren't bothering anyone. I don't think it will be an issue that people will be having their name attacked for no reason.
So now we are back to another system that adds this whole new layer of effort to keep track of a simple address to send and receive from.
Again, I think a username is not needed for simple send and receive functions. Even if you lost a username, you don't lose your public key. I think a rep system for user names and getting rid of spoofers is helpful
what is the big need, after you uselessly change the market engine in one day, to go and suggest highly complicated and not necessitated by any problem account value system?
What are the problems with BM's proposal ? Is it listed what problems your proposal solves? His proposal seemed fairly clean to me.
I don't see the current TITAN username system as a raging success:
-There have been a lot of spoof accounts created
-A number of people have been hurt by mistakenly sending funds to an incorrect name
-New user confusion with the "chicken and egg" name registration deal
-Issues with scanning the blockchain, missing info etc.
-Greater barriers and less focus on: Cold storage, offline transaction signing and watch only wallets.
(I think these things are very important and there should be more effort in this regard)