Furthermore it's possible that a purely proof-of-stake currency would have never gained the widespread trust that proof-of-work did at a time when cryptocurrencies were a new idea. Or maybe not... but people did have ideas about proof-of-stake quite early on and it took much longer for those ideas to gain the same level of acceptance that proof-of-work did.
For example, I happen to believe that decentralized coins are a horrible idea in and of themselves, even without proof-of-work also helping to increase global warming. So, from my point of view, any adoption of a crypto-currency is a net-negative, and I would be happy to know that the technology exists, but is staying abandoned as long as we have no use for it other than non-centralized money.
Sure, but that is a much different argument than proof-of-stake vs proof-of-work.
With the assumption that having a successful proof-of-stake cryptocurrency is a net good, then what I am saying is maybe our usages of proof-of-work up until the future widespread adoption of proof-of-stake actually will contribute more positively to that end than negatively.
So I stand by my original point - the resources going into bitcoin are not fueling technology research.
They may be fueling PoS Ethereum adoption, but that is another argument entirely.
I'm not sure that's true. Proof-of-stake is established as a concept but there is still lots of room for technological improvements in the implementation and user experience. New proof-of-stake coins can compete more effectively because of the trust which Bitcoin established.
Simple logic.. Billions of dollars in miners are bought by speculators, Bitmain orders new 5nm chips from TSMC... TSMC uses money for R&D.
Either you're being willfully ignorant or you're trolling us.