@adam Thank you for your hard work! I love how Counterparty used proof of burn and think it was a very clever solution. However, like you mentioned, I too have always been troubled by all that value wasted that could have gone towards other uses.
Therefore, I instantly gravitate towards your proof of charity solution. However, I was going through the reddit thread and read a comment from what appears to be a reference client dev "rnicoll" that is an interesting counterargument...I will paraphrase below:
...However... I'm going to be contrary and say I think Proof of Burn is a better idea universally. Proof of Charity effectively means having your cake and eating it; the coins are spent but also still exist, and new coins exist representing their old value. Proof of Burn is a much more elegant solution where the value is destroyed and created, rather than risking dilution.
I personally don't view dilution as a bad thing with something like Dogecoin, where some 100,000,000,000 will be in existence. I mean, what is burning 1,000,000,000 really going to help with there will be so many more left? I am just curious if you actually view dilution as a valid argument against the proof of charity idea?