[ballofrubber]

PoW is a lot different, as burning real world resources (energy) brings sell-pressure to miners, whereas PoS only has cost of locking the funds. This means that regardless of the size of your "operation" cost scales very flat.

PoS also does not come with the property of innovation and disruption. In a PoW (especially ASIC-based) system you will find new ways to outperform your peers and disrupt old players.

PoW incentivices cheap energy in developing countries more than anything before. It is the fix for environmental problems.

[TeMPOraL]

> PoW incentivices cheap energy in developing countries more than anything before. It is the fix for environmental problems.

That can only become true if and when governments decide to suddenly ban PoW, so that all that cheap energy services anything other than crypto. I don't think it works as an argument in favor of PoW, for the same reason "we're only spreading knowledge of chemistry and democratizing process engineering" doesn't work as an argument in favor of drug cartels.

Also, 'SR2Z is right - "cheap energy in developing countries" == coal.

[SR2Z]

This is a spicy take, not least because the cheapest source of energy in the developing world (i.e. the one without environmental regulations) tends to be coal.

[swiley]

PoS burns capital in the sense that it could be invested in something else (I was looking at staking coins but it doesn't come near the yield I get from my 401k for example, which is effectively providing unsecured debt to finance innovation.)

IMO: it's much better than PoW as long as it doesn't end up too centralized. I'm not too sure how I feel about the minimum amount required to stake though, that seems a bit odd.

[gverrilla]

from what I heard the minimum ammount might change, and it was decided in a time ETH value was lower