If I'm reading that correctly, could I give myself infinite StrangeCoin?
(Answer, you cannot. So this is not a valid solution to this problem.)
From my G+ reshare, in the context of a question about account caps:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielEstrada/posts/hQfNmirDfsm
> I suppose one way around the cap would be for users to maintain multiple accounts. I have no objection to this in principle, although it has an impact on the networks they can develop on any one account. If I have 20 Strangecoin accounts all coupled to and supporting each other, but are only receiving income through one account connected to the external network, then my subnet isn't going to grow larger as a whole than the one node connected externally. So I can't use multiple accounts to inflate just my identity. If I'm using multiple accounts, it's because I want to maintain multiple identities. Again I have no objection to this, or at least the protocol I've described doesn't rule it out.
Define the "external network". What keeps a single entity from simulating a network just as large as everyone else combined? At that point, how does one determine which network is the "correct" one, though both are the same size with the exact same connectedness stats?
In your case, you could even do the opposite: Pay me and my friends, or we will dislike every transaction you will ever make. Built-in racketeering
I don't think it will work with just a single strangecoin, but instead have one strangecoin per user (or more, but at least one strangecoin asset type per user on the network). Then when you issue new shares you're only inflating the supply or your reputation, which might cause a market reaction. Mind you that I am not saying the reaction would be a good or bad thing.