OK,
Forgive me if I disagree with you , but when it comes to Proof of Stake, we will have to disagree.
That is perfectly okay, but be prepared to be skewered because you didn't even read carefully the OP.
Your statement is a PoS history has no verifiable longest chain , actually it is the same as PoW , in that the Longest Chain with the most difficulty wins and normally will be the true chain.
Checkpoints are not verifiable math. They are adhoc social trust. The entire point is that PoS is not trustless, because nothing can be verified about time with math. Please go back and re-read the OP, because you've not understood the OP.
Nope. See what I wrote above.
A properly designed PoW block chain with sufficient hashrate doesn't need checkpoints.
Proof-of-Stake "Wastes" More Resources than Proof-of-Work
Hopefully I have justified to why I refer to PoS as P(iece)o(f)S(hit).
Ok,
Drink some coconut water , you seem delirious from the heat on this one.
I can run a PoS network on an already running web server or PC, meaning my drain on resources will be nothing compared to a ASIC PoW Miner.
You are not factoring in the cost of bribing the stake and other strategies that must occur because PoS is a power vacuum due to the lack of mathematically verifiable time. You did not read carefully the OP and the links provided which elaborate in great detail. Go click all the links in the OP, because you are entirely incorrect.
Your ignorance (and being too lazy to read all the links) is not a valid rebuttal.
It is easily as secure as PoW if not more so, if done correctly.
Absolutely not. You've not understood why trustless is important. You apparently don't understand why the fork of Ethereum destroys the trust that it will respect its own protocol rules. Etc. Read the OP again more carefully.