Re:The Ethereum merge is done
by Jasper_ on Thursday September 15, 2022 @11:24AM
(#32853471)
My view is that crypto's goals (e.g. decentralized, deflationary, no transaction reversals) are non-goals, but even if those non-goals were goals, both PoW and PoS fail to effectively solve them, especially the decentralized part. PoS sucks more than PoW on this axis: PoS encourages centralization within the system (those with more ETH control the chain), and PoW encourages centralization outside the system (those who command more assets to buy GPUs and energy controls the system), so it's really silly and funny and pathetic both fail at the same thing, with PoS moving the needle in the wrong direction, but also, it was a non-goal to begin with so who cares I'll just go with the one that doesn't set the planet on fire please.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
While I am largely against crypto it should be noted that the more ETH you have the less financial incentives you have to attack it.
Sure, but that also applies to "the more USD a bank has, the less incentive it has to want to crash the economy", with all the same flaws of logic.
I think the keyword here is _stake_.
As in with PoW I can migrate once the ecosystem is damaged (i.e. just mine something else, sell the hardware, w/e) with PoS I need that ecosystem to thrive to profit or to even exit it.
How are the incentives described any different than any other system?