I’m not an expert, but I never understood why people would prefer PoS over PoW. Indeed, the latter requires to “waste” larger amounts of energy, but doesn’t PoS favor rich groups of people colluding against the blockchain timeline?
Let’s think about this. Ethereums total market cap is $325b, if you tried to buy anywhere near half the market cap, you would drive the price up so egregiously that not even the US Government could probably afford it, and so many people would get suspicious and stop selling, that it likely would be impossible…but, even if you could, the action of falsifying even 1 transaction and getting caught would absolutely wreck the entire value of the chain driving it to zero. So you would have to spend probably on the order of $1 trillion dollars or more to effectively delete your money.
The only reason that would ever happen, and this would be quite the extreme, is if a large government like the US or China, saw it as so much of a threat, that they would go to this length instead of just banning it and letting it fizzle out.
Even if an entity could throw away $1T, there are many other ways to devalue crypto or make it untrustworthy. $1b of thugs, propaganda, and lobbying is way way more effective.
Not anymore than PoW, which requires specialized hardware that can’t be repurposed for other uses (and thus requires money to enter). I’m not sure if is still true, but I believe at one point less than 10 companies had over 51% of the BTC network.
Because ownership tends to be much more evenly distributed than ACIS ownership, it makes it harder to collude - you have to have 51% of all coins that are staked (and smaller owners generally pool to stake as well). In addition, a move to collude would almost instantly destroy the value of the staked coin (though maybe not assets tokenized on it), providing another incentive against it.
That’s PoW. With PoS, it is coin ownership.
Which is much more distributed than computing power.
Correct, and this post is about Bitcoin, which is PoW.
I’m not an expert, but I never understood why people would prefer PoS over PoW. Indeed, the latter requires to “waste” larger amounts of energy, but doesn’t PoS favor rich groups of people colluding against the blockchain timeline?
Let’s think about this. Ethereums total market cap is $325b, if you tried to buy anywhere near half the market cap, you would drive the price up so egregiously that not even the US Government could probably afford it, and so many people would get suspicious and stop selling, that it likely would be impossible…but, even if you could, the action of falsifying even 1 transaction and getting caught would absolutely wreck the entire value of the chain driving it to zero. So you would have to spend probably on the order of $1 trillion dollars or more to effectively delete your money.
The only reason that would ever happen, and this would be quite the extreme, is if a large government like the US or China, saw it as so much of a threat, that they would go to this length instead of just banning it and letting it fizzle out.
Even if an entity could throw away $1T, there are many other ways to devalue crypto or make it untrustworthy. $1b of thugs, propaganda, and lobbying is way way more effective.
Not anymore than PoW, which requires specialized hardware that can’t be repurposed for other uses (and thus requires money to enter). I’m not sure if is still true, but I believe at one point less than 10 companies had over 51% of the BTC network.
Because ownership tends to be much more evenly distributed than ACIS ownership, it makes it harder to collude - you have to have 51% of all coins that are staked (and smaller owners generally pool to stake as well). In addition, a move to collude would almost instantly destroy the value of the staked coin (though maybe not assets tokenized on it), providing another incentive against it.
Can’t you just split it up into however many wallets you want? If you’re rich that seems like basic security.