>The paper you referenced from early 2014 isn't really considered very relevant anymore
It is relevant and discusses fundamental problems with PoS, it is a very strongly reasoned paper and there hasn't been anything reasonable countering it so far.
It isn't considered relevant to scamcoiners, of course, since their goal isn't making a secure cryptocurrency, rather transferring money from a fools hand to theirs.
>t's kind of hard to have an argument of this subject with you, given that you seem to be complaining about PoS when ethereum 1.0 will be a 100% PoW system
So because I complain about PoS, I cannot argue that software is broken for any other reason? I don't have a specific complaint, they have such a complicated system that I have a myriad of complaints including Ethereums multiple consensus implementations, ASIC resistance, incredibly small block times, using insecure crypto in their illegal IPO, their system being basically useless, etc.
>The PoW guys will keep complaining that the PoS systems "aren't secure enough" and the PoS guys will happily use them anyway.
Since "PoS guys" appear to be fine with centralization and the obvious harmed security from that, they probably will be happy with other forms of broken security.
>Clearly I'm a PoS fan and don't think that'll happen.
There is basically no debate among cryptocurrency researchers that PoS doesn't work, it is mostly promoted among noobies and scammers. You can be a "fan" of it all you want, but it isn't like being a fan of Republicans or a fan of C++, it's like being a fan of md4 for cryptography.