Anything that isnt PoW is a scam

Also gives room for new tech like sharding which is easier to do on PoS than PoW.

>higher security, easier recovery from attacks, higher decentralization
All made up. In reality, it's not more secure because it introduces a fuck ton of attack vectors, for instance, now you can just attack the biggest nodes in real life and steal their keys. Something you can't do in POW.
>sharding which is easier to do on PoS than PoW.
Categorically incorrect. In fact, it is so much harder to do that every network that tried PoS sharding went up into flames and had to centralize hard. This is why ETH gave up the idea and went with danksampling (danksharding) instead.

PoS's security degrades as a PoS attempts to scale up. POS already has massive security problems that sharding exacerbates dramatically
With POW, the work done is pinned to an external reality (hash difficulty) which makes it quick for anyone to verify (rehash+count the zeros). With POS, the "proof" is pinned to an internal reality aka the stake.
Regardless, all sharded POS networks basically degrade to one of two models in practice: high-centralization w/ supernodes (ZIL/hashgraph) or hub-and-spoke.
POW doesn't have this issue because POW is pinned to the external world (you can validate a header's POW w/o having to download the chain) + POW is stochastic, which allows for a seamless production of blocks in parallel.

based cat posting crypto traditionalist

> it's not more secure
It is because it simply costs a lot more to gain 51% control. Even if the attacker manages to do that there are more incentives against it e.g. loss of stake instead of just electricity, community intervention with removing from validator set or UASF etc.
>attack the biggest nodes in real life and steal their keys
This could be done but it's not an attack to the network. It's just basic theft like stealing a PoW miner's hardware.
>sharding
Danksharding is sharding too. It's in the name. I know execution sharding was dumped ages ago with rollup-centric roadmap.
>the rest
Not dissecting a word salad pasta.

>loss of stake instead of just electricity, community intervention with removing from validator set or UASF etc.
I'm not doing to get into that because I think the other discussion is more interesting, just know that it's hard to define what/who the attacker is and it's never so cut and dry like most shills would like to belive.
>is sharding too. It's in the name.
It is not sharding, if sharding means fully partitioned shards that operate in parallel, it's more like sampling, even the biggest ETH shills agree with me.
>Not dissecting a word salad pasta.
I can explain in simpler terms, basically to actually shard, you need a simple way to prove that something on another shard is actually true. Since PoW provides simple to verify hashes, it means doing that is incredibly easy, this is how betablock/blockrope proposes back in the bitcoin forums worked. PoS provides so such options requiring one master shard to coordinate all shards, this does not scale sadly, as seein in Polkadot. The more shards you add the less you scale and more centralized it becomes. If you don't want to go with a main chain then security will drop dramatically to the point where it becomes unusable, like in avax with their sidechains. And if you go with other options like Near which, you'll end up with something akin to a DAG instead of fully partitioned shards.
If you read vitaliks blog vitalik.ca/general/2022/03/29/road.html you will see him talk about this issue and why they went with a simpler/less scalable approach. it is a mess on PoS systems.
Yet on PoW such a system can work, I mean, it is currently working and scaled in production.

Attached: file.png (752x757, 75K)

babena :)

>mfw fell for the PoS "green tech" scam

Attached: ifOnlyYouKnew.jpg (632x710, 90.29K)

If we go all the way back to my point I meant that it allows for future Eth upgrades. Maybe not sharding as you define it, but future upgrades in general that can't be done/are harder to do in PoW. As far as I know most future Eth changes are planned to work with PoS as it's been an objective since the launch and I thought this applies to Eth's vision of sharding. I might be wrong because I'm not a sharding expert. Even if your definition of sharding isn't possible with PoS, the points of higher security, decentralization and attack recovery still answer your original question and we got distracted by sharding. I'll have to read more, it's a complex topic.

>>sharding
>Danksharding is sharding too. It's in the name.

lol like I said! even die hard shills agree with me :)
>considering if you're referring to danksharding it's pretty much a misnomer, probably better called danksampling due to understandable confusion with the old sharding model.

>but future upgrades in general
Like?

>Higher security
Lmao

idk why I put the :) in there, It's so hot I have no idea what I'm doing/saying