Hey, thanks for your question! I am happy to explain the pros/cons of Proof of Stake vs. Proof of Work to you. The difference is that POW has a well researched and validated incentive model, while Proof of Stake has not. With POW, the party/group who is putting in the largest amount of money/mining power over time is directing the consensus during that time. With POS, the party/group who has the largest amount of coins once is directing the consensus at any time.

So for example, with POS, an attacker could accumulate a massive amount of coins while the coin is cheap, and carry out a double spend attack years later when the coin is worth much more. That is not possible with POW, because the difficulty will increase over time if the value rises. Therefore, having POS on a low-value coin is much more risky than POW. With POW, you can just increase the required confirmations (like Novaexchange did for Titcoin for example), and even if there is a 51% attack the damage is not so large. With POS, once someone has a too large balance the chain is effectively worthless.

Another problem with usual POS implementations is that the person who has the largest balance will increase their share on the network through exponential growth until they own >50% of the coins. A specific problem with merging with TTC is that the TTC devs must have a very large amount  of TTC already (since they are offering a swap from a different coin etc.), so they have way too much power on the network and will profit the most from POS. A cryptocurrency should be as democratic as possible and not be controlled by the people who happen to have the largest amount of coins through shady swap practices.  

So Proof of Stake sounds nice at first but it has a lot of problems if you look closer, especially if you want the consensus to still be trustworthy when the value rises a lot.