[adh636]

Decentralization and censorship resistance matter very much to the people who want bitcoin to succeed and become the native currency of the internet and the world, as does a nearly impossible to change monetary policy. Bitcoin has made very deliberate tradeoffs to ensure these properties. PoS is just the same system we currently have, where the central banks and exchanges are the ones who profit off holding all the coins. If you're analyzing the technology by what can most efficiently keep track of 1s and 0s, obviously a blockchain isn't the answer, PoS included. For creating a new money to remove the purse strings from the control of central bankers, of course the Tech matters.

[cryptica]

I'm a blockchain developer who spent years analyzing PoW and then went on to work on DPoS for years. What you're saying about PoS being the same as our current banks is incorrect.

When you look at the fundamentals, PoS is superior to PoW. The reason why people don't realize this is because Bitcoin proponents are constantly distorting the facts and they have a lot of people and money behind this agenda.

Bitcoin mining is extremely centralized; just a few large pools control the entire network.

If a government wanted to start mining Bitcoin, they could print unlimited fiat money to buy as much ASIC hardware as required. The cost of acquiring hardware grows linearly so it's easier to do a 51% attack. With PoS, the cost of acquiring stake grows exponentially as you approach 51% due to supply contraints in the underlying token.

There is the electricity argument. PoS uses orders of magnitude less electricity.

Also, users of PoS cannot tamper data or make fake transactions even if by some miracle they managed to acquire 51% of tokens.

I've had long arguments with PoW developers about DPoS which go into every detail and argument exhaustively - I have not yet once encountered an edge case that was not accounted for.