Quote from: LegendaryK on Today at 06:30:16 AM

You know you just pointed out how wasteful even the PoW ASICS are, less than 2 years and they are nothing more than paperweights.
Only 4 mining pool operators determine what bitcoin transactions are allowed.
Their are No PoS networks that are as centralized as bitcoin PoW.
As far as a PoS coin, 10% would give 10% of the staking rate, but they have to sell coins against fiat to make a profit,
meaning they sell their stake amounts, and if others don't, then that 10% staking rate drops over time, as it becomes less than 10%.
PoW is pure waste, ASICS (2 years and toss) and the energy drain, all waste and no performance increase when you waste more energy,
not even transaction finality in 4 hours.
While Algorand a PoS coin has transaction finality in 4 seconds, and massive onchain transaction capacity, that bitcoin PoW can't even hold a candle too.
Bitcoin PoW onchain transactions are so limited, that they want people to use offchain 3rd party networks such as LN or Liquid to compensate for btc onchain weakness. (Lame)

So many words and so much nonsense.

'Wasteful ASICs' - that's the whole thing this thread is about. Without waste, no value. In other words, PoS is also wasteful since there is no incentive not to lock up funds forever (it's a free money printing machine with guaranteed returns). ASICs don't guarantee returns.

Centralization aspects due to mining pools are debunked over and over; yet you argument that in PoS you can pool your stakes, so on one hand you're against pools, while on the other hand you encourage them. Sounds odd.

Stakers don't have to sell their stakes to make a profit. In the real world, rich people don't e.g. sell shares to live off of, instead they borrow money against those shares. Same thing does / will happen with PoS holders. They just get richer and richer by design, guaranteed and will never sell off anything if they are smart. I'm sure they'll convince you that the only option to realize profits is to sell, because they don't want you to have a lot of stake and have it all for themselves. Bitcoin miners don't have to sell their machines to make a profit, for the record. They can sell the coins or hold them, both options are open.

There is no value without waste. There are many articles about it. Either your coin is worthless or waste is happening in a different way (not directly through power consumption or electronic waste).

Transaction finality in 10 minutes is easily quick enough compared to what Bitcoin is competing against (the fiat system). I understand that altcoins compete against each other so they have to come up with something to be 'the best' so they push for something like unnecessarily short confirmation times. Since you can achieve shorter conf times with PoW just as well as with PoS, the debate against a shorter confirmation time is a different one than the one we are having here, so I'm not going to go into more detail on this.

What you call on-chain weakness is what we call on-chain security and stability. Firstly, if we changed something drastic in Bitcoin (such as much faster confirmation time or switch to PoS) and for whatever reason the new code is buggy, leading to BTC's demise, all of your little altcoins will go down with it. Secondly, layers make sense. If you don't have much experience in computer science, everything we use today is based on layers. Nobody writes in assembly code anymore; instead we write in high-level languages which are compiled once or multiple times until they become machine readable. This results in more efficient computations and less development times, as well as lower risks in terms of security and safety. Or the network stack. We speak of five to seven layers of abstraction, which allow us to send encrypted emails back and forth with a few clicks and no thoughts about protocols, IP addresses, ports, MAC addresses or physical electrical signals in the cables.