if PoS provides for more security how come advanced check-pointing was conceived with PoS only?
Because it isn't. PoS suffers from a "nothing at risk" problem. An attacker can use coins they no longer have but did have at one point in the past to attack the network. Actually there is no reason to not do this. If the attacker is unsucessful well they lose nothing in the attempt and if they are successful they get all their coins "back" (that they may have lost, had stolen, or sold). Checkpoints limit how far back the chain can be reorged but they don't solve the nothing at stake problem, only limit the extent of the damage.
thank you for this feedback -
I of course understand this, and for the PoS positive for Quark people i have to say the lower hash rate is in many ways a part of the game, i think what we have to do as a community is (as ReRaise has put forward there) work together.
in the long term, What i did was a sociological experiment we were all a part of it - we introduced a lot of people that new nothing about crypto to crypto, people claim Doge did that , i would argue Doge introduced a lot of facebook users and maybe some forum goers.
Quark achieved a pretty big goal, and now its time to "come back home" in a respect where we know what its all about, i see Quark as a reserve currency now, i will be using it as that also and people will see what we will achieve in the future.
in the end again when the price inevitably rises there will be those that never listened and we will move into a slight exuberance again.
honestly i see everything as it should be.
certainly some more pools with innovative incentives could help, but its part of a decentralized community equilibrium, i just can't justify throwing that equilibrium out for a perceived threat based on a despair cycle.