Quote from: Khaos77 on November 13, 2019, 06:48:19 AM

You can ignore the solution, but ignoring PoW failures are what is going to bite everyone in the end.

What solution? Ditching it for PoS? Lol.

Quote from: Khaos77 on November 13, 2019, 06:48:19 AM

Again someone else claims PoS has problems, funny no one can name them. Cheesy

That's because they've been rehashed endlessly and most are a Google search away. But sure, for the sake of the topic (and despite you being someone who is adamantly against Bitcoin), I'll enumerate a few:

The nothing at stake problem:

Quote from: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Problems

However, this algorithm has one important flaw: there is "nothing at stake". In the event of a fork, whether the fork is accidental or a malicious attempt to rewrite history and reverse a transaction, the optimal strategy for any miner is to mine on every chain, so that the miner gets their reward no matter which fork wins. Thus, assuming a large number of economically interested miners, an attacker may be able to send a transaction in exchange for some digital good (usually another cryptocurrency), receive the good, then start a fork of the blockchain from one block behind the transaction and send the money to themselves instead, and even with 1% of the total stake the attacker's fork would win because everyone else is mining on both.

Vulnerability to long range attacks:

Quote from: https://medium.com/@abhisharm/understanding-proof-of-stake-through-its-flaws-part-3-long-range-attacks-672a3d413501

While PoS clients do penalize things like double-voting in the short-term, they cant stop the individuals who were around for the beginning of the chain to revert all of the blockchain history and start a new, seemingly valid chain. In effect, every version of a blockchain that exists or has ever existed could be revived and run as its own chain, if the underlying protocol allows for it.
In Proof of Stake chains, in the early stages there will be a relatively small group of miners with coins staked. As more and more users join the chain and obtain the underlying asset, the pool of miners, i.e., the users who have staked coins, becomes larger. However, after the fact, the original, small group of miners can get together and decide to go back and revive that early version of the chain, and since in the ensuing stages they would be the only ones who could mine blocks, they would soon hold a large share of the assets on that chain. And since there isnt a limit on the growth-rate of Proof of Stake chains, only how long it takes each chosen miner to mine the next block, these chains can suddenly become extremely long.

The rich get richer at no expense - Whereas rich whales under PoW will actually need to spend and risk their money for the opportunity to earn more money, PoS allows whales to get richer faster passively, making it more prone to centralization

Adopting PoS will inevitably split the userbase - because it's not a fix as much as it's an alternative, some people will choose to stay on the PoW chain, making Bitcoin weaker in the end.

As for your so-called problems:

Quote from: Khaos77

Energy Waste will continue to worsen

Energy will keep on being consumed, but with the developments in renewables, it's going to be much less of an issue going forward.

Quote from: Khaos77

Transaction fees will increase or the network will collapse

No signs of collapse at all, and fees will get better as more improvements are made.

Quote from: Khaos77

Government approval will be required for the miners to host massive electrical draining warehouses

No basis in reality yet.

Quote from: Khaos77

Bitcoin Mining Control will continue Centralized to the Top Mining Pool Operators

No different from whales centralizing PoS.

As I've said earlier, trading problems for other problems is not a solution. PoS has its merits, but if something as large as Bitcoin is going to change something as crucial as its consensus algorithm, it'll have to be for much bigger gains.