The attack surface of Ethereum’s PoS is pretty huge, and derivative staking already has a runaway accumulation problem. Bitcoin’s entire critique of money is based on not being something like Proof of Stake.
The attack surface of Ethereum’s PoS is pretty huge, and derivative staking already has a runaway accumulation problem. Bitcoin’s entire critique of money is based on not being something like Proof of Stake.
Doesn't a PoS attack require 51% of coin ownership? How would an attacker obtain that without being massively rich to begin with?
Overall I’d just argue that because PoS doesn’t involve external resources to create blocks, the cost of producing a block won’t be well understood and thus there will be opportunities for rent extraction - which we’re already seeing with Lido staking.
He never said that. He said there isn't enough fee revenue. Fee revenue can increase as blockchain space becomes less scarce, and more bytes are sold to transaction generators.
>>that depends on something like Bitcoin’s UASF and thus on people running their own nodes, I wouldn’t trust his predictions much
An Ethereum based UASF by no means requires every one running their own nodes. It just requires people recognizing - via either an upgrade to their own node, or choosing a third party node that has upgraded to pull data from - the chain that slashes the coins of those who are executing 51% attacks.