So your counter argument is you prefer to wait until someone has actually implemented the described attacks before taking action?
Nothing in your link from January counters this paper released days ago.
Ok. Go ahead and break it. You have nothing at stake and nothing to loose. Don't talk about it. Do it... and if you dont, then you yourself have proven that it can't be done.
So if I personally lack the ability to implement the described attacks (and I'm not going to volunteer whether or not this is true), or I refuse to perform the attacks on moral grounds, then the attacks cannot be done by others?
Your faith in my skills is appreciated, but the latter can be seen as an invalid argument. The attacks are certainly still possible by others regardless of my own moral objections.
Im still waiting for you or someone to break it to prove it can be done. Morally, someone should go ahead and break it to save the POS guys before they dump more time and money into it. The same can be said for POW and mining centralization. If it can be broken, then someone needs to go ahead and break it to save us all a lot of trouble. So far, I have seen a bunch theoretical attacks (all costly) against both POW and POS (and DPOS) and I have yet to see a successful attack on a major scale, at least at current rates of adoption. The real test will come at higher rates of adoption when the stakes are much higher and attackers have a much larger incentive to try to break the system. Both POW and POS will have to prove their resiliency with another order of magnitude or higher increase in the rate of adoption, and I believe both systems will prove resilient.