Hacker News Reader

Comment by IshKebab | Hacker News Reader

I know nothing about proof of stake but it sounds like he's saying it is vulnerable to the same kind of 51% attack as proof of work but you need 51% of the coins instead of 51% of the hashing power?

If so that sounds safer than proof of work. What am I missing?

View on HN

You're not missing anything. TFA is wrong.

exactly right. That is why I flagged this low quality article.

Given enough time he is saying a single bad actor could amass 51% and attack the chain. It would also be a very expensive attack as they would risk the value of their stake. A PoW attack doesn’t require the same amount of investment.

Not only would it risk the market value of the stake, but in Ethereum's version a double-spend attempt would result in near-immediate destruction of the stake.

If a coin is worth a trillion dollars, could a nation state just start buying up huge amounts, essentially indicating a 51% attack will occur soon, causing a rush for the door, causing prices to drop, despite the clear demand?

Or would prices go up because there'd be a guaranteed buyer and a group buying at the moment.

Dogecoin, which was made as a joke, has the 6th largest market cap of cryptocurrencies. It’s incredibly hard to predict how it would affect the market.

> A PoW attack doesn’t require the same amount of investment.

Right, so PoS is better? He seems to be arguing against that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com