[Frogolocalypse]

> Biggest owner has the same incentives as the smallest owner

Biggest owner can steal smallest owners money because biggest owner controls the consensus rules. So no, the incentives aren't aligned.

> what is the force

The only one that matters : Supply and demand, and no ability to cheat the system. The only thing that is happening is more and more people are recognizing it.

[vasilipupkin]

Biggest owner can steal smaller owners money, maybe, depending on the POS design. But that would make no sense. I mean the biggest owners have the biggest stake in the integrity of the network, no? supply and demand can clear at X and at 0.5X, so that doesn't answer the question for me.

[Frogolocalypse]

Then you fail to understand the incentive structure. The only game-theory outcome to a PoS system is a monopoly. That's the reason why there aren't any successful ones. Because they require trust.

[vasilipupkin]

Agree, I fail to understand what you mean. If I'm a large owner of a POS coin, why would I want to steal smaller owners' coins ? Don't I want them to trust the system and keep buying more coins ?

[erkkie]

What about a hybrid PoS/PoW system? In reality, bitcoin as PoW is also near monopoly, more like oligopoly, still requiring trust.

[Frogolocalypse]

If you think this you don't understand the technology, and therefore don't understand its value.

[erkkie]

Elaborate? I mean mining pools in China with the oligopoly bit. Are you saying that's not a problem? I would say the current bitcoin PoW scheme is inherently seeking to end up in a few actors having most of the power due to the higher and higher barriers of entry to mining on custom silicon. ELI5 why I'm wrong?

[Frogolocalypse]

Nodes define and police consensus in bitcoin, not miners. Miners have a single choice : mine for bitcoin according to node consensus rules, or don't. That is the only power they have.