[nickodell]

>Uh oh. Remember Paycoin, with its "Prime Controllers" and "guaranteed minimum value". That didn't end well. The whole point of all this cryptographic machinery is supposed to be to eliminate the need to trust some central party or parties.

Personally, I'd compare this to Ripple; semi-centralized transaction timestamping seems to work ok for them.

>It's conceptually elegant, but the process is complex and delicate. Lots of things can go wrong, and it needs "challenge periods" of about a day during which things get sorted out.

I agree.

[SuddsMcDuff]

Any degree of centralization leaves the network open to attack, whether by technical, regulatory, or financial means. Ripple Labs recently got hit with a hefty fine from FinCEN - http://www.coindesk.com/fincen-fines-ripple-labs-700000-bank...

[nickodell]

How would a decentralized method of preventing double-spending have protected them from that fine?

It seems like the only way to protect yourself from this would be to have no money in the first place, or to have no fixed address.