> the more you have of the capital the more you influence the system
That's not how PoS works, though?
That's not how PoS works, though?
The difference with slashing is that forking is no longer "free" as each fork penalises members who only support the other fork. Let's consider your example in PoW and PoS with slashing. In PoW both chains would continue and miners can freely switch - their funds are also duplicated. In PoS those that support each chain will eventually be locked in, and penalised if the other chain "wins".
This doesn't prevent all (or effectively enough) stakers being coerced/forced by a powerful enough entity, but that's a social problem that no consensus algorithm can resolve - just as if effectively everyone was a bad actor.
Which governments, saying to whom? And how would they enforce it? What would be the consequences for those that didn't comply?
There are other proof-of-stake blockchains other than Ethereum, and for those it has indeed worked quite well in practice.
Not to mention that no one would be interested in using any network where this level of centralization could pose a real threat, and the most likely outcome of such a scenario would be a loss of the value of the native token.
Who would be interested in using any network which exists only for the profit of the existing stakeholders? Why not just fork it?
This already happened once with Ethereum.
Those that decide against the fork stayed on what became "classic".
In the end, that's what really matters.
It would be more interesting to discuss new flaws in the protocol, or things that generally haven't been discussed before.
Large miners do have power, the power to destabilize the system. The same power large POW syndicates have that delays POS will be there in POS only in a more direct literal way.
What do you think will happen if a more decentralized verification system will be proposed once there are people and institutions that will have large sums of invested money and effort? do you think that they will just give away the financial power they have? this is not how any system involving human works and cryptographic technology is not going to change that.
How is a system that allows people with ~$30k to have any type of influence worse than the status quo?