[pamplemoose]

or you can fork and remove the bad actors, burning all their coins. good luck with their next attack. in contrast, you can't burn an attackers fleet of miners

[micropresident]

What do you think a PoW change does when the PoW is being done by ASICs?

Slashing stake is significantly more arbitrary. You basically need to reset the coin's ledger in order for it to make any sense.

[nootropicat]

>What do you think a PoW change does when the PoW is being done by ASICs

It's only possible once, and this move is so obviously predictable any determined attacker is going to have gpus ready.

[micropresident]

Repeating "ultrasound money" memes. That specific meme has to do with state level attackers blowing up mining farms. It has nothing to do with changing issuance. And the entire premise is that an external force comes in and tries to co-opt it.

That isn't relevant to the conversation of stakers having misaligned incentives to change the rules. The most a state level actor can do is censor transactions if they were to take over a chain.

With PoS you'd need to slash the validators stake on a fork; which isn't going to happen because the stakers run the validators everyone is using. You already saw this with the steemit takeover.

In PoW coins, the miners and validating economic nodes are two separate groups. Watch what happens when exchanges slip over to Eth2 nodes and call it Eth.

During the BCHA/BCH split the exchanges were the ones that decided the ticker. Most users have ZERO CLUE about what happened. They went on their with their lives calling the fork the exchanges chose BCH. Once exchanges are validators there is no bulwark against changes.

[nootropicat]

>With PoS you'd need to slash the validators stake on a fork; which isn't going to happen because the stakers run the validators everyone is using.

Sorry but I don't see your point here. A fork inherently requires action, it's enough to force a node to follow a different block from some height. At that point the attacker would get penalized for being offline. Outright deletion would require code modification. It's even possible to automate a minority fork in the case of censorship, although this capability doesn't exist yet.

>You already saw this with the steemit takeover.

Steem isn't even PoS, it's dPoS. Even in this case users successfully created a fork called Hive and removed Justin Sun's coins.

[fvdessen]

> The most a state level actor can do is censor transactions if they were to take over a chain.

Which is the exact thing state level actors want to do !

What is the use of crypto if the state can ban me or my country from it ? Isn’t that exactly what decentralisation was supposed to prevent ?