Which consensus is more secure and decentralized? PoW, PoS, PoC or all in one?

[Kodaman]

- Proof of work (PoW) is mining via CPU or GPU and consumes high electricity. It has the risk of being centralized by mining cartels and vulnerable to 51 % Attacks. It is available to only CPU and GPU owners.

- Proof of stake (PoS) is minting via staking of the crypto wallet and consumes very low electricity. It has the risk of being centralized by whales owning the majority of the coins and also vulnerable to 51 % Attacks. It is available only to coin owners.

- Proof of capacity (PoC) is mining via HDD and consumes low electricity. It has the risk of being centralized by HDD mining farms and vulnerable to 51 % Attacks. It is available to only HDD owners.

I know there are hybrid consensus projects that use PoW and PoS together for more security.
 
Are there any hybrid consensus projects that use Pow, PoS and PoC as an all in one hybrid solution that can reach to many people for real decentralization and for complete guaranteed security? What are your thoughts about the possibility of a hybrid solution?

[Kodaman]

I am sad to say that bitcointalk has no more technical people left in it and the only people left are moon boys and bounty hunters.

[lancelot18cryp26]

Well i am not a technical guy but from what i saw SINOVATE project is planning on a tri-hybrid consensus for the future.
Technical guys can read and comment to enlighten us.
https://masternode.buzz/sinovate-interview/

[pixie85]

PoW is the most secure as long as the industry is big enough. If you pt a shitcoin that is being mined by a single pool and a few solo miners you won't get decentralization and security. This system works best with big, popular and valuable coins like Bitcoin. That's why it was able to operate for 10 years without a 51% attack. Because this system simply works.

I like PoS because it allows almost anybody to make money from a coin without all the technicalities of mining, but it is not the most secure or the most decentralized. You have to sacrifice some features to get some other.

[hatshepsut93]

All decentralized algorithms are vulnerable to 51% attacks, so you can kinda ignore it. The only networks that are not vulnerable to it are the centralized ones like XRP or Libra. The key difference between PoW and all other algorithms is that in PoW energy is spent on every block, so it's much harder to succesfully launch a 51% attack, because you not only need hardware, but also you have to keep sustaining your attack, which is extremely costly. With PoS you can just buy majority of coins and wreak havoc with nothing to stop you.

[TemTum]

Look at what temtum does

Uses a quantum source of randomness to ensure a truly random number - impossible to sybil attack, double spend of fork

Check out Richard's PhD research papers on this

Makes all other consensus algorithms pointless

[bgaf]

There is no perfect consensus yet to avoid 51percent attacks. Pow is the most conventional and useful IMO. I know many trying to create or introduced new one to imporve the lack of PoW but over the years, its still proven to be the most effective when it comes to blockchain and platform compatibility. PoS is also nice but not to great to say that it can bear PoW power in terms of processing. The attack isnt that much priority here cause all of them can be breached the concern here I'm thinking is the scalability which suit PoW to be proven useful.

[slaman29]

I think for me the consensus doesn't matter in the end. POW with Bitcoin is already decentralised and will get even more decentralised despite mining cartels (whose powers are getting less and less by the way).

PoS could start off as decentralized but will be hard to detect centralization UNLIKE PoW.

[Kodaman]

What about a consensus of three in one that has PoW, PoS and PoC for more decentralization to reach to a broader participants and for more security?
Doesn't a hybrid consensus requires bad actors to get 51% of all of the consensus?
In this case the bad actors must own the 51% hash of CPU-GPU for proof of work, 51% of the current coins in the PoS network(proof of stake) and 51% hash of the proof of capacity of Harddrives, right?
Isn't improvement and evolution better for the blockchain world?

[shinratensei_]

What about a consensus of three in one that has PoW, PoS and PoC for more decentralization to reach to a broader participants and for more security?
Doesn't a hybrid consensus requires bad actors to get 51% of all of the consensus?
In this case the bad actors must own the 51% hash of CPU-GPU for proof of work, 51% of the current coins in the PoS network(proof of stake) and 51% hash of the proof of capacity of Harddrives, right?
Isn't improvement and evolution better for the blockchain world?

If you meant about the hybrid consensus that combined by all of those consensuses will create a lot of conflicts. The decentralization can be reached when there was no party that can afford to get more than 51% power in the network. Combined all of those consensuses into the one blockchain will not help it to get the decentralization. Bitcoin just gives us a good example of how the true decentralization can be achieved when there are massive people are securing the blockchain that makes the hash rate will be divided widely. That's more than enough to ensure the decentralization of the blockchain itself.

It doesn't need to reach 51% in all of the consensuses as that depends on how much the node is supporting each of the consensuses. They can't run in the same blockchain as it must be parallel blockchain.
It's not so simple as that.
Remember there will be a supporter of any consensus and when this happens and it has a very high possibility for the blockchain to be unstable.
When you have 100% demand and this will be divided for those consensuses.

[lancelot18cryp26]

A hybrid consensus that includes different fields would be awesome!

[microsurfer]

Not POW for sure. Only guys with supper powerful equipment can mine in our days.