> It comes with a very real nuclear option that will bankrupt miners if you misbehave and get fired by hashing algo change. Changing the hashing algo isn’t a r

> It comes with a very real nuclear option that will bankrupt miners if you misbehave and get fired by hashing algo change. Changing the hashing algo isn’t a realistic punishment for targeting misbehaving miners. You end up with two choices: 1. Change to an algorithm that uses gpu/cpu instead of ASICs (and is ASIC-resistant), but then your algo runs on general-purpose computing and you can’t fork miners off ever again. 2. Move to another algo that benefits from ASICs. This has the extra overhead that you need to spin up manufacturing and distribution of these ASCIs to honest miners, which takes quite a long time to do and while you’re waiting, your network is being attacked. In either case, you aren’t just punishing a misbehaving miner, you’re punishing *all* miners who now all need to get funding to buy and rack new hardware. You’re making a big assumption that the misbehaving miner won’t be able to get financing or sufficient capital while the honest ones will. If the dishonest miner’s attack was profitable while waiting for the fork, they get to keep all of that money and can spend it on new hardware. In PoS, the attacker will lose their stake, meaning they lose the money they had before, and earned as a result of, the attack. It may be much more difficult for that validator to get access to capital and lenders will be hesitant to lend to an entity that now has a history of burning capital.