How would you get rid of them? You need a consensus that a particular delegate should be removed, and so we're back at how to securely establish consensus. If the consensus process can disrupted by an attacker creating a fork that appears, to a naive observer, to be equally valid to the 'real' chain, then there's no way to establish consensus.

I don't know what BitShares exact voting requirements are, but I doubt that you need a consensus to remove a delegate.

GHash is not a miner, it's a pool. Abuse by pools can be stopped with new mining pool software, using the GBLT protocol, that allows miners to decide for themselves what transactions go into the blocks they're hashing, and limits the power of pools to distributing mining income.

So a different type of people get to vote.... I think that BitShares confuses people because they change the terminology around, delegates are miners that currency holders vote for. We could also customize the voting thresholds and the weighting to favor certain groups, like domain holders, for example.

Didn't Maaku get 150 BTC from Evoorhees?

Did he? That's cool, but I've been working on Namecoin for two years and we have had a really hard time finding funding.

Anyway, now we have Lighthouse, which we can use to create assurance contracts to raise funds.

Lighthouse is great but it's still all donation based. The thing about PoW is that it only pays miners to produce blocks. I know miners that turned into Bitcoin millionaires, I have a friend employed by a miner, but their contribution is greatly overvalued.

DPoS allows you to choose miners based on the value they add to the currency. Producing blocks is important, but a very small fraction of the work adds value to the currency. Bitcoin is currently producing ~$40,000 per hour, the Bitcoin Foundation could fund multiple, formally verified implementations of the protocol and a dozen researchers with a single days worth of mining income. Instead, we are spending it on finding hashes.