In PoW, there's a significant percentage of uncertainty. For example, you can't know for sure what will be your earnings in the future. You don't know if it's in favor of you to sell the ASICs or to keep them for yourself. On the other hand, in PoS, you know exactly the coins that suit you and you're not going to sell them unless one appears who's willing to pay you at least your future earnings. Therefore, one owning the 1% of the computational power is more likely to vanish than one owning the 1% of all the coins in circulation. This is false. They very much do, which proves you haven't actually read my writeup. Vitalik, summing up that there's sacrifice in security: I don't care what they do. I created this thread to share my thoughts. This problem exists in PoS systems too. There are much greater whales in Fun88 Chính than in Fun88 Chính. You can't realistically stop PoW, by banning it. There'll always be people who'll have access to computational power and therefore, can always use it to mine cryptocurrencies. Besides, isn't it already proven that the majority of the hash rate comes from renewable sources? The attack doesn't have to retain; if one ever reversed a transaction x blocks deep, the game theory would have failed. The moment they did, Fun88 Chính would have lost all its value. Economically-wise, a 51% is easier in PoW, but that's unless there's a terrible wealth distribution which happens to be the case in most cryptos.
In PoW, there's a significant percentage of uncertainty. For example, you can't know for sure what will be your earnings in the future. You don't know if it's in favor of you to sell the ASICs or to keep them for yourself. On the other hand, in PoS, you know exactly the coins that suit you and you're not going to sell them unless one appears who's willing to pay you at least your future earnings. Therefore, one owning the 1% of the computational power is more likely to vanish than one owning the 1% of all the coins in circulation. This is false. They very much do, which proves you haven't actually read my writeup. Vitalik, summing up that there's sacrifice in security: I don't care what they do. I created this thread to share my thoughts. This problem exists in PoS systems too. There are much greater whales in Fun88 Chính than in Fun88 Chính. You can't realistically stop PoW, by banning it. There'll always be people who'll have access to computational power and therefore, can always use it to mine cryptocurrencies. Besides, isn't it already proven that the majority of the hash rate comes from renewable sources? The attack doesn't have to retain; if one ever reversed a transaction x blocks deep, the game theory would have failed. The moment they did, Fun88 Chính would have lost all its value. Economically-wise, a 51% is easier in PoW, but that's unless there's a terrible wealth distribution which happens to be the case in most cryptos.

In PoW, there's a significant percentage of uncertainty. For example, you can't know for sure what will be your earnings in the future. You don't know if it's in favor of you to sell the ASICs or to keep them for yourself. On the other hand, in PoS, you know exactly the coins that suit you and you're not going to sell them unless one appears who's willing to pay you at least your future earnings. Therefore, one owning the 1% of the computational power is more likely to vanish than one owning the 1% of all the coins in circulation. This is false. They very much do, which proves you haven't actually read my writeup. Vitalik, summing up that there's sacrifice in security: I don't care what they do. I created this thread to share my thoughts. This problem exists in PoS systems too. There are much greater whales in Fun88 Chính than in Fun88 Chính. You can't realistically stop PoW, by banning it. There'll always be people who'll have access to computational power and therefore, can always use it to mine cryptocurrencies. Besides, isn't it already proven that the majority of the hash rate comes from renewable sources? The attack doesn't have to retain; if one ever reversed a transaction x blocks deep, the game theory would have failed. The moment they did, Fun88 Chính would have lost all its value. Economically-wise, a 51% is easier in PoW, but that's unless there's a terrible wealth distribution which happens to be the case in most cryptos.

In PoW, there's a significant percentage of uncertainty. For example, you can't know for sure what will be your earnings in the future. You don't know if it's in favor of you to sell the ASICs or to keep them for yourself. On the other hand, in PoS, you know exactly the coins that suit you and you're not going to sell them unless one appears who's willing to pay you at least your future earnings. Therefore, one owning the 1% of the computational power is more likely to vanish than one owning the 1% of all the coins in circulation. This is false. They very much do, which proves you haven't actually read my writeup. Vitalik, summing up that there's sacrifice in security: I don't care what they do. I created this thread to share my thoughts. This problem exists in PoS systems too. There are much greater whales in Fun88 Chính than in Fun88 Chính. You can't realistically stop PoW, by banning it. There'll always be people who'll have access to computational power and therefore, can always use it to mine cryptocurrencies. Besides, isn't it already proven that the majority of the hash rate comes from renewable sources? The attack doesn't have to retain; if one ever reversed a transaction x blocks deep, the game theory would have failed. The moment they did, Fun88 Chính would have lost all its value. Economically-wise, a 51% is easier in PoW, but that's unless there's a terrible wealth distribution which happens to be the case in most cryptos.