PoS(hit) can never be secure, because if it has a functioning markets (which it must in order to be widely adopted and liquid), then one can borrow stake, attack the coin (
which requires much less than 51% to for example delay transactions by some N blocks where N is a function of percentage of coin supply held), and then pay back the borrowed coin with cheaply bought coin as the price collapses due to attacks. You could simultaneously short it (i.e. which you did when you borrowed the coins, but sell some for fiat before you attack) for profits. Also PoS can't distribute new coins, thus eventually the coin supply shrinks asymptotically to 0.
With PoW, your borrowed mining hashrate would eventually reach end of contract and the coin would repair itself. And you'd need much closer to 51% to do damage. You would hope to be able to purchase the coin at cheap prices, wait for it to rise back up and then sell it for fiat to pay back your loan. Much less plausible.
However if you are up against the
corrupt State that charges cost of PoW mining to the collective, then we're screwed with profitable PoW also, except I have the idea to use the unprofitable PoW of every person's computer in the world (with latency preventing them from farming out to ASIC), which seems might be even too much of an expense for China to hide the subsidization of.
Also PoS can't distribute new coins, thus eventually the coin supply shrinks asymptotically to 0.
You are wrong here. There are PoS variants that distribute new coins.
No variants can. And the last time you debated me, I defeated you on every single point. Are we going to have to do it again?
See Bitshares, genius.
Again the point is that with PoS, there is no FAIR or EQUITABLE way to distribute new coins that doesn't mimic the proportionality of the existing stakes, thus this is the same as the divisibility that is already built into the existing coins. No new distribution was achieved, just offsetting inflation.
If you have any other gimick in mind, please cite it specifically, so I can identify the flaw for you. You have been hoodwinked.
The amount of say you get in the company is compared to the amount of stake that you own. Corporations have been thriving on such practices for years now. Executives get nice stock options and benefits and the larger shareholders have more say, yet all stakeholders profit (if it is a well ran business of course.) If that is known before someone invests in a company/cryptocurrency that whoever has more stake will get more say in the company, then it is ridiculous to call it not fair.
You are also assuming that everyone votes in their best interest only and not the company's best interest, which is not always the case. If you go have a look at what each paid witness is doing for Bitshares then it becomes clear it is not the case.
You mean either:
- Larger stakeholders get more (either because they can outvote the smaller ones, or because the smaller ones are somehow convinced the coin will gain more value if they give away their coins).
- Corporations are created, new shares are created, production in this economy makes these shares more valuable, minority shareholders agree to give more shares to those who run or work for the company.
I assume you mean #2, since #1 is idiotic.
But by definition the shares have to be non-fungible with shares of other corporations. So unless you make Bitshares one corporation for every productive venture, then the new shares can't be Bitshares.
So there is the flaw. You can't have one corporation that produces everything for the world. It lacks degrees-of-freedom. It is same as tying yourself to your sister and trying to each go about your daily life tied together.
Dumb shit like this is why I do not respect the Larimer incest.
Bitshares ... people will even stab or murder each other eventually ... It's also going to have elements of corporate fascism