Also, how can a PoS coin be attacked using this? Does this mean that PoS coins are more secure as atomic altcoins than PoW?
Unlike hashrate (electricity), stake only has to be purchased once and attack forever, so therefor rental prices for stake should be much lower (since stake costs less than hashrate).
I think we solved the jamming problem with CLTV version of DE. So there was a positive outcome from this thread. I am happy that DE can work.
Yes scrutiny leads to progress.
"stake costs less than hashrate" this appears to be the same as saying donuts cost less than springs.
Sometimes the stake required to attack will cost more than hashrate and vice versa. So it all depends on the specific coins being talked about.
And I am not thinking it is so easy to cause deep reorgs at will. It could be that the DE for low security coins needs to be done over longer periods of time and in small increments, ie overlapped micropayment channels.
I am not conviced by general statements, especially when they have counterexamples that prove they are incorrect. I can easily name many PoS coins that are more expensive to obtain stake enough to attack against a set of PoW coins whose hashrate is lower.
Sorry, general scare statements dont work on me. Only specific failure cases, which can then be generalized and solutions usually devised. I know that if I just say, sure in theory it wont work and dont push for a solution, then it would limit things to BTC <-> LTC and gradually more and more, so at worst it is a slow process, but we dont have to outrun the bear, we just need to be more secure than a CE.
James