Removing the initial delegates was a good idea as the network was terribly slow initially.

Why not naming it something meaningful for everyone and using that (full) name everywhere until people start using abbreviation(s)?

Bitshares Base ?

Top 101 cannot all have 66 %. If each share holder is limited to 33 votes.   The best they could achieve is 66 delegates with 33% each. 

Got it! Thanks!

So a person cannot vote for more than 33 delegates with his whole stake. So this is approval voting with limit of maximum votes to 33% of 101 (number of elected delegates).
And the reason for this limitation is transaction size ?

I need to ban BM from posting without PR review.

We aren't diluting the first chain, end of story. Edit: by "we" I mean "anywhere I have the final say"... looks like me amd dan and stan are out of sync about wtf the plan is

"Randomness" is an OPTIONAL feature for OPTIONAL PRIVACY ENHANCEMENT. Delegates are NOT selected randomly, you just fuzz your votes over time IF YOU SO CHOOSE.

A PR wouldn't allow you to post this also... publicly stating people inside the organization are "out of sync about wtf the plan is" doesn't do much about the confidence of potential investors.

*Autovoting algorithms that can be gamed

Autovoting algorithm exploitation depends on the predictability of the voting algorithm not on the voting system. One can still exploit it even in approval voting.

*Cat and mouse of trying to vote down delegates

Yes. Having exclusive voting system (able to vote for only one entity) and ability to switch vote, enables a lot of vote-switching scenarios.

*Downvoting has too much opportunity cost

As I said I don't like exclusive vote - if you downvote you should still be able to upvote. However this particular moment needs more research.

*Large shareholders profit from voting themselves to be delegate or negotiating kickbacks.

The idea in DPOS is - shareholders elect delegates. If there is a large shareholder he will elect his own delegate(s).
As the votes are public negotiating will be always possible. Imagine the deal: You vote for me, I vote for you, none of us vote for anyone else.

*Small shareholders most likely don't get these benefits or can't negotiate kickbacks

This is correct in both systems. Negotiating efforts should produce value - you dont negotiate for 10 units but you will do it for 10 mil.

*No incentive for delegates to reinvest profits to help the DAC

Votes are always incentive. Most people will elect delegate that helps the system. These just for profit might not stay unless backed by large shareholders.

*Attacking entity can buy 50+ delegate positions through kickbacks

Where is that explained?

*Shareholders can't vote for all delegates they trust (must pick 1 at time)

Yes! This could be an issue. (although you can spread your stake by % )

*Person with 3-4% has lots of power (can basically vote in or out a handful of delegates at will)

Correct! And even such person could manipulate the autovote easily as I stated initially.

*Delegates don't need/have broad community support

Yes, but they must not irritate a lot of people because they could downvote them. Which is costly (unless upvoting/downvoting is not exclusive)

*Pulls community and shareholders apart instead of bringing them together.
*Is confusing and not intuitive
*Ruins our one chance to make a great 1st impression on 1st time users.

... cant comment on this.

It looks like approval voting is better. Although there are still things to consider.

And as bytemaster proposed hardfork with removal of balances voting for misbehaving entity => this might affect LAZIES which are presumably normal lazy users who let the software autovote for them. Hardforking without their stake might be something even more evil than EVIL's initial plan.

do you connect through 107.170.30.182:8763 ?

,{
    "addr": "107.170.30.182:38519",
    "addrlocal": "xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:xxxxx",
    "services": "00000001",
    "lastsend": 1403353891,
    "lastrecv": 1403353921,
    "bytessent": 121024,
    "bytesrecv": 82512,
    "conntime": "20140620T214351.588474",
    "pingtime": "",
    "pingwait": "",
    "version": "",
    "subver": "bts::net::node",
    "inbound": false,
    "firewall_status": "not_firewalled",
    "startingheight": "",
    "banscore": "",
    "syncnode": "",
    "bitshares_git_revision_sha": "e724df5e08f57522cc69406c7b8f3164952cdacf (different from ours)",
    "bitshares_git_revision_unix_timestamp": "20140620T203400",
    "bitshares_git_revision_age": "16 hours ago (older than ours)",
    "fc_git_revision_sha": "accb6fddcbde110600edaf46de4a749130b90046 (same as ours)",
    "fc_git_revision_unix_timestamp": "20140619T195141",
    "fc_git_revision_age": "41 hours ago (same as ours)",
    "platform": "linux"
  }