Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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