Quote from: pooya87 on December 14, 2022, 04:10:55 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 13, 2022, 05:58:47 AM

Plus replacing POW would be very stupid. Ethereum might learn from this, the hard way.

Shower thought. If Ethereum POS wouldn't be enough to secure the billions in their blockchain, and not enough to secure it as a global base layer for tokens, I believe they will probably need Bitcoin to secure their blockchain, and that probably creates more and more demand for Bitcoin transactions when block rewards become less and less after each halving. Cool

When you analyze an altcoin like Ethereum you should have one eye on all of its aspects instead of just focusing on the algorithm that changed from PoW to PoS. In this case the most important attribute to consider is Ethereum's centralization. That has helped this shitcoin survive a lot of things and the only reason why they switched to PoS and has been able to keep this mutable blockchain alive is because it is centralized and they have a lot of control on it.
In other words if a decentralized coin does the same, the effects won't be the same at all.

You're right! Haha.

I believe Vitalik Buterin is starting to pivot when he posted this tweet.

Quote

People continue to underrate how often cryptocurrency payments are superior not even because of censorship resistance but just because they're so much more convenient.

Big boost to international business and charity, and sometimes even payments within countries.

https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1562542183562878976

I don't know why there are many people who remain to follow that charlatan.

But because Ethereum is centralized doesn't actually suggest that the billions of value in that blockchain is safe/secure. Every pleb knows, centralized = single point of failure. A government-entity can attack it. If there's a probability that Ethereum's POS, consensus through committee, is not enough to secure it, how high is the probability that it will need Bitcoin POW to secure it?