The only theory I'm aware of, which the "proof-of-stake" approach is based on, is some form of "game theory", my translation - "people won't do evil stuff since it's against their interest", which generally aligns with people being rational and basing economic theories on top of this thesis.
Every major chain except bitcoin and ethereum is proof-of-stake now. And in less than a year, ethereum will be proof of stake. People that say proof-of-stake "won't work" have no idea what they're talking about.
>People that say proof-of-stake "won't work" have no idea what they're talking about.
My understanding is every POS blockchain is centralized and not secure.
Can you name a POS blockchain that you think has achieved sufficient decentralization and security so we can test your claim?
PS: How about answering the question instead of preemptively downvoting and attempting to shutting down the conversation. If POS truly works, you should be happy to provide an example or even multiple examples. Any reluctance is a red flag...
In my opinion it's because it has not happened yet. Yes I know about the etherium experiment that has been delayed many times but may be running currently, but the crypto community seem to prefer the proof of work.
They prefer POW because it's actually more secure and decentralized. ETH POS results in a smaller group of people controlling the network, majority of fully validating nodes running on AWS, and introduces massive collusion/attack risks.
ETH POS has many of the bad characteristics current central banks have...
The only theory I'm aware of, which the "proof-of-stake" approach is based on, is some form of "game theory", my translation - "people won't do evil stuff since it's against their interest", which generally aligns with people being rational and basing economic theories on top of this thesis.