Because Satoshi never intended for PoW to be the end-all be-all solution to the double spending problem. How could anyone believe that a cypherphreak trying to implement a workaround to totalitarian power would create something that gives the most money to the most powerful. It's the exact opposite of decentralized (aka p2p). Just ask yourself, does this benefit peers in a p2p network? If the answer is no, then it is not what Satoshi intended. Satoshi posted a lot about Proof of Stake and Web of Trust, terms that he repeatedly noted had novel definitions. He defined proof-of-stake as the hash of your stake in a given system. Your participation. In a txting app, it's your conversations. Where there exists public and private data. Public data is that which can be agreed upon by other actors (generals), such as your name and phone number and length of time online. Private data is the content of the texts between two parties. If encrypted in an append only hashed timechain, that content can be used to do one-way authentication and signing, which is very useful for circumventing surveillance. This concept can be applied to any p2p app, such as a Bitcoin ledger. Once the initial network is generated and agreed upon using proof of work, you no longer need to use PoW to ensure byzantine consensus, or perhaps it is not needed at all, if the network is agreed upon in some other way, perhaps by wide publication of the genesis block. How can anyone mention "$100k per transaction fees" as being logically sound? Obviously that is not how Bitcoin is supposed to work. How does that facilitate "probably there will always be miners willing to accept zero fee transactions" from the whitepaper? Remember the difficulty is auto adjusting. Obviously everything should be auto adjusting to facilitate all beneficial transaction types. Miners should only be eligible for reward when they have a block that contains sufficient diverse attributes defined such that they facilitate the network goals. Goals like micro transactions, large cheap transactions, time-stamping documents, encrypted communication, fast tx for messaging apps, proof of replication for archival purposes, reputation/reviews for spam/DOS prevention, distributed p2p network health, etc... When Satoshi wrote one-cpu-one-vote he proffered that as an alternative to one-IP-one-vote in order the prevent large orgs buying up many IPs and getting a disproportionately high voting power. The system should be designed to distribute the wealth and power fairly to each person and use this distributed network to disincentivise concentration of power. Why are we worried about Cybill attacks? Doesn't the timechain automatically buffer against them? Oh look, here's a transaction signed by this address with a prior sequence (block) number and a prior time, sent from these coins, to recipientX, now here's another transaction spending the same coins but with different attributes. Why would anyone do that in good faith? If only we had a distributed network that could broadcast information about such haxxor attempts to prevent them from being performed secretly. Oh, we do? Why isn't it being used? Satoshi said the network would ignore invalid transactions automatically, so no need to track bad actors. This is generally true, unless there is a huge state level actor doing a Cybill attack and rewriting a long chain of blocks. Well, this is easily preventable because why did all of the Western hemisphere not hear about any of the last 20 blocks then all the sudden everyone else is spamming us with 20 blocks different from our 20 blocks?? If there is not already coded alarms/logs for such anomalies, then the system was designed to facilitate them. so... is Bitcoin designed to facilitate theft?