So earlier, that Buterin had thoroughly studied the vulnerabilities and found PoS wanting made it clear to you that PoS had insufficient security.
Now, when you find out that Buterin has decided that PoS is the best option (but is dissuaded by others from using it), Buterin is clearly wrong despite his thorough study.
So there are probably no arguments or studies or science that could persuade you that PoS is secure, right? It's more of a faith thing, and we might as well be arguing evolution with right wing catholics, maybe?
First of all, we don't know if Buterin prefers TaPoS over PoW... I am simply open to evidence and am willing to admit it is plausible. The point still stands with Ethereum whether it comes from Gavin or Vitalik.
Secondly, as I have stated numerous times in this thread, I like TaPoS, and think it offers
some security differences,
benefits, and weaknesses to PoW and would like to see it integrated as a layer on top of Bitcoin for added security and other benefits.
Just because I can find critical flaws within PoS variants doesn't mean I see no security or benefits from such consensus mechanisms. I have been vary critical of bitcoins weaknesses, PoW weaknesses, and Bitcoin companies throughout my post history.
I am not interested in trading one set of problems for another but rather discussing methods of strengthening crypto-currencies security and understanding inherent weaknesses.