Enrico on Nostr: PoS is inherently flawed because a 51% attacker cannot be overthrown, it has control ...

PoS is inherently flawed because a 51% attacker cannot be overthrown, it has control over the validation and can keep it indefinitely, which is never true for PoW. If you look closer at slashing, which I assume you consider the countermeasure against the above, you should look closer a fundamental aspect: how is the slashing action decided? If it's reached by consensus then you again have the problem of how to reach consensus and you're back to square 1, if it's decided "algorithmically" then you surely have a centralised (or centralized-ish) authority that can decide what this algorithm is and how/when it can change. Simply look at the slashing for downtime: who decides what is percentage of downtime acceptable? Who decides is this threshold can be modified? PoS tries to "fix" the quintessential solution to the decentralization problem (the byzantine generals problem) hence putting itself in the impossible position of trying to solve a myriad of side problems in creative and over-complicated ways, trying to sweep the centralization under the rug hoping nobody will notice it. It's like the perpetual motion problem: (crazy) people continue coming up with ingenious new ways of building a working example, but you already know they are doomed to fail without even looking into the details of their inventions simply because you know that there are fundamental principles that cannot be violated, accidentally related to energy and entropy like in the case of PoW.