Even though on the surface two schemes might seem somewhat similar, they are fundamentally different:
PoW - neutrality, freedom of innovation, hacker mentality, equality of opportunity, game of skills
PoS - entrenched interests, corruptible humans, oppression, inheritance of wealth, game of luck
PoW - neutrality, freedom of innovation, hacker mentality, equality of opportunity, game of skills
PoS - entrenched interests, corruptible humans, oppression, inheritance of wealth, game of luck
Shining example of how financial interest messes up judgment. Keep sticking to it and you will remain wondering how the PoS coins are getting more and more marketcaps.
I prefer to diversify enough to not let any personal bias get in the way of my judgement.
But it's not about me and it's not about you either, it's about what we are going to tell future generations.
This is a junction point in history again, when you can become a stakeholder overlord if you want to, but little do those wannabe overlords know that winning in a rigged game ain't fun.
PoS means the rich get richer automatically. Sounds great... if you're rich.
On a certain level it's no longer about wealth, it's about control.
PoS allows to maintain control over money flow at no cost without letting any competition get in the way.
In PoW neutral algorithm judges the competition.
I do think that PoS has merit and a niche in the future. People will find it useful for sub-groups in society and companies will use it for managing their assets and shares. But organisizng an entire universal money system as PoS with select major stakeholders established in the beginning is simply asking for trouble. In that sense PoS is not much different than today's fiat.
Although it depends on what you mean by "51% attack". Reversing a secured transaction - 0% probability as long as one stake is honest. Delaying transactions - can be delayed 2x the average while controlling 50% of the stake, hardly impressive.
