> What's fascinating about the proof-of-stake vs. proof-of-work debate is that there's sometimes (not always) a tinge of anti-government sort of sentiment. For

> What's fascinating about the proof-of-stake vs. proof-of-work debate is that there's sometimes (not always) a tinge of anti-government sort of sentiment. For me, the PoS vs PoW debate is a question of system resiliency. In PoS compared to PoW, you not only lack an in-band means of identifying the chain used by the most people (pick the wrong one and you're screwed), but also if sufficiently many staked tokens are knocked offline at once, the system loses quorum and freezes forever. PoW has neither of these weaknesses -- it provides an in-band way to rank forks by usage, and it provides an in-band way to recover from loss of hashpower. Governments (i.e. the people) will naturally set limits on what blockchains can legally be used for, since they exist in the Real World and create Real Negative Externalities if abused. This may be an unpopular opinion in most cryptocurrency circles, but I actually welcome sensible cryptocurrency regulation.