Probability of a double spend is so low that it is not even worth considering....
1) You would have to be doing business with the Timekeeper
2) The timekeeper would have to isolate you from the rest of the network
3) Given that everyone knows who the timekeeper is (likely a group of people) they would not get away with it...
4) As soon as the double spend was detected it would be very clear which chain had the most TaPOS behind it and was public and which one was the attackers chain.
Assuming you are connected to several well known nodes in the network other than the timekeeper with cryptographic prevention of man in the middle, the probability of attack by timekeeper is 0 without collusion.
I get that. probability is very low. Probability must be weighed against consequences though. if probability is high and consequences are low risky behavior is okay. however with unknown consequences probability is a useless value. I would like to know the consequences should a very low probability event occur.
Consequences are one individual who is out of money and must take the Timekeeper to court for fraud. Timekeeper would be cut off from all business relationships in the community and labeled a scammer for life. Total amount lost? depends upon how rich you are and how rich the timekeeper is....
Like I said, probability is 0 and consequences are near 0 damage (to the network) and perhaps some damage to *ONE* individual for *ONE* transaction. In other words this is MUCH better than Bitcoin.
I wholeheartedly agree that this is better than bitcoin. After all I wouldn't be moving my BTC reserves to PTS/AGS if I didn't agree. The product is of course very different than bitcoins product.
Is the network designed to rapidly resolve forks without damage to shareholders or transactors? What happens to the transactions on a fork with fewer CDD?
Following my prior analysis it seems to me that this recent modification of protocol is an attempt to reduce forks, which leads me to believe that forks would cause greater damage to the system than centralizing block creation.
In essence, while your security may be better than bitcoin, you are also attempting to do more than bitcoin. If you were attempting to provide a better payment system I would be sold, but with the real time trading of bitassets I've got to be more suspicious.
**edit** I'm also drunk and going to bed. If you take that as a judgment on my viewpoint I woulds ask that you take a long serious look at your motivations. If you take this as an excuse for any errors on my part, I would appreciate it. Good night.