> Did you mean PoS in your last sentence? Totally. Apoligies. > It isn't clear to me that PoS is much different, in the sense that you can imagine attacking t

> Did you mean PoS in your last sentence? Totally. Apoligies. > It isn't clear to me that PoS is much different, in the sense that you can imagine attacking the network by gaining a larger stake, enough to be "calling the shots on the truth" (ie silencing other stakeholders). I think we agree on this one: Proof of Stake and Proof of Work are both vulnerable to their respective 51% attacks. But they are also (more or less) equally safe: If you don't have 51% of capital at stake/mining power, you cannot attack the network. So, all things being equal, my argument is that PoS is advantagous because it requires fewer resources. (This is expressed for example in the fact that the block reward with PoW needs to be much higher than with PoS to re-finance the same amount of capital investment. Because if proof of stake, you also get back your original capital.)