[eyezick]

I'd further add on to say PoS has the benefit of being able to eliminate bad actors unilaterally. You can't stop anyone from attacking a PoW chain over and over again. Attacking a PoS chain is much riskier as the attacker's stakes are held on chain and are at the mercy of the community who uses the network.

[rawtxapp]

If the community forks to void an attacker's coins, that creates a very bad precedent. It already happened with the dao hack (which was pretty bad to begin with), but if it keeps happening, why would you trust that blockchain.

[ZephyrBlu]

PoS doesn't fork the chain, you just lose your stake if you stake malicious blocks: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms...

[jude-]

Why does the attacker need to hold or buy any coins? All the attacker has to do to wreck havoc is prevent quorum from being reached. This can be done by knocking validators offline (which is a slashable penalty), or hacking validators and making them slash themselves, or hacking an exchange or two in order to amass control of 33% or more of the voting power.

[vbuterin]

If hacking billions of dollars of cryptocurrency was actually easy, plenty of people who are not rich right now would be very very rich. Alternatively, if PoS chains are vulnerable because you can hack exchanges and use their coins to attack, then PoW chains are vulnerable because you can hack exchanges, sell the proceeds to buy ASICs (or just buy the ASIC company), and use those ASICs to attack the PoW network.

Hacking billions of dollars of cryptocurrency is NOT easy, and it gets harder with every passing month, because validators and hodlers have billions of dollars of incentive to protect themselves.

[pshc]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but being offline is not a slashable penalty. You would slowly lose ETH and eventually be ejected, but not slashed like a malicious validator would be.

[eyezick]

The point is it mitigates the on-chain attack surface which is still prevalent on PoW. Off-chain attacks are still possible for all consensus mechanism.

[leishman]

Now replace "attacker" with "somebody the largest stakers don't like" and see how dangerous this becomes.