Topic: Is PoS safer over PoW? - page 2. (Read 193 times)

The market value proves that the electronic currency has chosen POW. Most of the top POW coins in circulation are market capitalization, and Bitcoin alone holds a market value of more than 80%. The market value of POW coins, such as Litecoin, dog coins, and dark coins, is also higher, and dot currency is POW plus POS. However, the POS model's bit stocks, future coins and so on have not been ranked higher in market value. The market value is also much smaller than the POW currency. Reebok and Stellar are either POS or POW, but adopt a consensus mechanism that they do not have a blockchain. It is also impossible to create a blockchain with POW or POS. The value of electronic currency is not generated by POW or POS. The purpose of POW and POS is just to ensure blockchain security. E-coin value = powder loyalty * user volume * The source of the value of the application volume is not related to the process itself.

This is why PoW critics are incredibly wrong when they say, "Proof of Work is so wasteful, they are polluting a lot for no purpose".

What's so difficult to understand about the fact that all that energy generated in the mines is to secure the network?

Without all that "waste of energy" it wouldn't be possible to claim that Bitcoin is the safest crypto in the game. You either have it or you don't.

PoS is not safer

there are ways to play around with the "validator pool" so that on person with 20 addresses (if the pool requires minimum 20 validators) could slf 'mine' blocks forever

PoS is cheaper to mine.. again making it easier to attack
PoS is more energy efficient as it doesnt require special equipment. but with that said instead of buying millions of $$ of equipment you can spend a smaller amount on staking a validator pool you game the PoS system

PoW is effective, one can just refer to its longstanding success. However, PoS does introduce some enticing possibilities in the form of better energy efficiency, less volatility and its decentralization argument (not everyone is entirely convinced on this last point,however). Ultimately, better energy efficiency seems to be the backbone of this model--which is great! (and often overlooked as an issue). In terms of decentralization, many do not agree this will be as revolutionary as thought to be since, once again, the power will be continually given disproportionately to the ones with a higher stake in the coin. The disparity will be small at first but eventually the outcome will look like the same issues currently found within the POW model where miners in huge pools are the winners. In terms of security, POW miners will stop if/when they detect an invalid block, on the other hand, in POS if a block is detected as invalid, the node who creates an invalid block in the network is fined their initial bet, thus making an attack a riskier endeavor. Again, the pow model has proven to work, however, so does it need to be changed? It'll be interesting to see how ethereum applies it and if it ultimately works! Perhaps in the end the solution will be a combination of both pos and pow.

It would be easier yes, but you do also have to remember that a 51 percent attack is something which is going to rely on someone purchasing a crazy amount of the coin itself (making the price rise with the purchases) Plus the fact that if they did go forward with the attack, it would make their coins crash in value (as people would start panic selling)

51 percent attacks make more sense with POW as the person can still use their machine, though this isn't the case with POS.

This all sounds quite good, a more decentralised working and using far less energy
than POW. I dont know anything about the security but If DASH (which is not 100% POS)
can be as successful as it is i am confident about it.

There is an issue with the 51% attack as has been mentioned above, for POW it would
be extremely energy reliant on attacking and maintaining, will a 51%attack be easier
On POS?

In case of money related services, every computer wants to have maximum security protection from the potential hackers.

Due to the disincentives in the PoW system, it becomes unattractive to bad actors and has exited. Attacking a PoW network is not cheap, and one might end up spending more than he can steal.

The PoS algorithm needs better protection as it is cheaper to attack. The deposits of the validities serve as collateral, and if they go against the rules and create an invalid block, they will lose their deposit. Both are pretty much safe to be used.

But the PoS system still has the upper hand due to the collateral involved.

I would have to say that POS is much safer for the coin itself, as it forces people to own the coin that they want to compromise if they want to do that. This makes no sense though, because if they want to compromise the coin they're going to be compromising their own asset-- meaning that they're going to lose money if they do this. People who own mining rigs won't have the same issue, as they will simply be able to mine another coin and live on with compromising with PoW

Check out this for an in-depth comparing of the two (https://decentralize.today/why-pos-is-better-than-pow-2dc3cd9881a7?gi=7c9f061772cc)

I'm no expert but I think proof of stake is more secure and safer option than proof of work as it decentralizes the currency and is distributed among all the hodlers and stakers. While in proof of work most of the power is controlled by a few bigger miners. Also people get a chance to earn decent reward on their coins with POS.

Ethereum is going to shift from PoW to PoS, obviously its hurting the miners community also, raising questions over the security, developers are worried about the security of PoS, PoS have advantage over PoW in terms of energy, but is going to be secure as much as PoW?