> , and that getting caught attacking will demerit tokens from you.
even that's only true if you define dememerit attack and caught in particular ways.
E.g. I have a lot of tokens then sell them. (or go around and buy up worthless no longer used keys from people who had a lot of tokens at some point).
Now I can bifuricate the history at that point, create all the alternative histories I can't and you can't take anything from me.
To protect against these alternative histories one needs to use a separate consensus mechanism. In many systems this has been essentially "some trusted third party signs the real stuff" -- often with some obfuscation in between. If you're okay with that security model, why not eliminate the intermediate step theater and just use the ultimate centralized consensus?
even that's only true if you define dememerit attack and caught in particular ways.
E.g. I have a lot of tokens then sell them. (or go around and buy up worthless no longer used keys from people who had a lot of tokens at some point).
Now I can bifuricate the history at that point, create all the alternative histories I can't and you can't take anything from me.
To protect against these alternative histories one needs to use a separate consensus mechanism. In many systems this has been essentially "some trusted third party signs the real stuff" -- often with some obfuscation in between. If you're okay with that security model, why not eliminate the intermediate step theater and just use the ultimate centralized consensus?