Why blue? White with red trimming would be nicer.

Ugly, but not a bastard.

He’s the current most watched left wing political streamer.

True, I agree that PoS has tradeoffs and isn’t a perfect solution. And I totally understand that Bitcoin has lots of reasons to stick with PoW. I was speaking more generally about resilience and security in PoW vs. PoS.

I don’t think what happened to Ethereum is a fair comparison, because PoW doesn’t have finality to begin with. When Ethereum temporarily lost finality, it just reverted to a PoW-like model, where finality is probabilistic. It was a degradation, not a catastrophic failure.

Sure, those attacks happened on lesser-known chains like Ethereum Classic and Bitcoin Gold, but doesn’t that actually suggest PoS is more resilient in practice, even if can be argued that it’s weaker in theory?

In PoS, to extract value or compromise finality, an attacker needs to control 67% of the stake, which has never successfully happened, even on unknown tokens or forks from popular chains. That’s a pretty strong track record for security and resilience.

Do you mean poorer? Electric prices went up everywhere a crypto mine was installed.

The woods? That sounds like exercise. 9/10

Honestly it’s kind of dumb.

I’m guessing that they didn’t cook it at the right temperature. They probably would have wanted you to let them know so they knew there was an issue.

I wonder if it is a plug in issue then

What in the SCP is this?

Does it work on Firefox? Seems to not work for me.

Instead of “sub” , I propose “dom”.

Sure, but connections will come the more often you try.

Here’s a list of a number of them: https://99bitcoins.com/wiki/51-percent-attack/

I should note that I’m lumping in security as part of resilience, since being able to recover from problems includes being able to recover from attacks and limiting damage from attacks. If something is not as secure it’s not as resilient, either.

Centralized staking: Yes, it’s a concern, but so is centralized mining. We’ve seen real-world 51% attacks on PoW chains due to mining centralization.

Weak subjectivity: True, it’s a real factor, but not a showstopper. Clients just need to use a recent finalized checkpoint.

Slashing risk: It exists in theory, but we haven’t seen it hit honest validators in practice, even on smaller PoS chains.

I mean in general, Bitcoin aside, PoS is more resilient than PoW. The only major resilience issue I know of in PoS is when validators came offline for Ethereum and couldn’t reach finality. But I don’t think that’s a fair comparison to PoW because PoW doesn’t have finality in the first place. Also, because PoS has finality, it’s resistant to long-range attacks, even if someone did a 51% attack (which has never happened for a PoS chain), they wouldn’t be able to rewrite finalized blocks.

But their food is actually good, tho.

I’m just not that… (insert thing here)

I agree with a lot of your points, but I’d add that money is a limited economic resource tied to the real world, atoms and all that. Buying stake in a network carries a real, physical cost similar to buying mining equipment.

Also, I don’t think PoS’s more flexible recovery models are necessarily a bad thing. They actually provide adaptability in case of problems.

But if we look at resilience historically, PoW chains have been vulnerable to 51% attacks, like we’ve seen with Ethereum Classic and Bitcoin Gold. Where as with PoS, noone has even been able buy up 51% of a chain for an attack.