From POW to POS： is it the evolution or retrogress of cryptography currency?

[BIT-Sharon]

With regards to distribution, in PoW all you need to get into the economy is mining equipment and an internet connection. In PoS the only way to acquire currency is from a stakeholder. After distribution, the stakeholders can transact with whom they choose and nobody has any other way to join the system. I realize this is a simplistic perspective, but it is a powerful tool to promote exclusionary policies. For instance, it would be easy for a state to exclude foreign PoS currencies and promote their own. This could be a positive thing depending on your political perspective. It could also be used to segregate social groups by denying them participation. PoW however, cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.

Finally someone who also realizes this. Although your stance in particular is probably a bit too negative. However, if one really thinks about this he/she would realize it.
This might simplify it for those who do not understand:
In a PoW coin such as Bitcoin:   In order to acquire coins you can buy equipment and mine it yourself (aside from buying from others).
In a PoS coin such as Peercoin: In order to acquire coins you need to find someone who is willing to sell i.e. who is willing to let you be part of it.

what's the final purpose of POS? I feel it terrible.

[BIT-Sharon]

To this date, I have not seen a satisfactory debunking
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.

Polestra's latest paper:

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

Simply speaking, no matter POW or POS, if a single miner could create big amount of blocks, then any cryptocurrency  is untrusted.

True, however please note that the paper I referenced is basically saying PoW is capable of true distributed consensus, while PoS is not.

yes, the true distributed consensus is the original intention of bitcoin, while there seems other purpose for coins of POS which makes me feel terrible.

[BIT-Sharon]

PoS is apartheid. You must ask permission to become part of the economy. If the stakeholders are racist, then they will exclude that race from participation. So far that isn't a problem, but it is an excellent tool for despots to promote. This is not evolution. That is social darwinism.

what kind of despots here are referring in particular to? Do they have the power and wild ambition to shake the authorities?

[cbeast]

PoS is apartheid. You must ask permission to become part of the economy. If the stakeholders are racist, then they will exclude that race from participation. So far that isn't a problem, but it is an excellent tool for despots to promote. This is not evolution. That is social darwinism.

what kind of despots here are referring in particular to? Do they have the power and wild ambition to shake the authorities?

The world is full of inherited seats of power held by ego and violence. PoS is the tool for them to maintain their regimes because simply holding majority stake wields capital controls unshakably and indefinitely.

[Lauda]

what's the final purpose of POS? I feel it terrible.

Inflation which tends to be unstable and often leads to 'boom and bust' cycles. Aside from making the rich even more richer, it is devaluing the currency because of it.
It's not that bad, however it isn't that good either.

[Amph]

PoS is apartheid. You must ask permission to become part of the economy. If the stakeholders are racist, then they will exclude that race from participation. So far that isn't a problem, but it is an excellent tool for despots to promote. This is not evolution. That is social darwinism.

what kind of despots here are referring in particular to? Do they have the power and wild ambition to shake the authorities?

The world is full of inherited seats of power held by ego and violence. PoS is the tool for them to maintain their regimes because simply holding majority stake wields capital controls unshakably and indefinitely.

isn't the same as saying simply holding majority of the mining activity wields network control, which is happening right now with chinese and their 60%...

the only difference is that while miners need to sustain their businesss and so need to dump their coins, they cannot control a good portion of the total supply

instead with pos, for the fact that you do not consume energy like in pow, it will be more easy for you to control a good portion of the total coin in circulation if you start big...

[HCLivess]

With regards to distribution, in PoW all you need to get into the economy is mining equipment and an internet connection. In PoS the only way to acquire currency is from a stakeholder. After distribution, the stakeholders can transact with whom they choose and nobody has any other way to join the system. I realize this is a simplistic perspective, but it is a powerful tool to promote exclusionary policies. For instance, it would be easy for a state to exclude foreign PoS currencies and promote their own. This could be a positive thing depending on your political perspective. It could also be used to segregate social groups by denying them participation. PoW however, cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.

Finally someone who also realizes this. Although your stance in particular is probably a bit too negative. However, if one really thinks about this he/she would realize it.
This might simplify it for those who do not understand:
In a PoW coin such as Bitcoin:   In order to acquire coins you can buy equipment and mine it yourself (aside from buying from others).
In a PoS coin such as Peercoin: In order to acquire coins you need to find someone who is willing to sell i.e. who is willing to let you be part of it.

PoW however, cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.
cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.
anyone that has adequate hashing power.
hashing power.

Right, and hashing power grows on trees. And Bitcoin early adopters are not billionaires.

[cbeast]

With regards to distribution, in PoW all you need to get into the economy is mining equipment and an internet connection. In PoS the only way to acquire currency is from a stakeholder. After distribution, the stakeholders can transact with whom they choose and nobody has any other way to join the system. I realize this is a simplistic perspective, but it is a powerful tool to promote exclusionary policies. For instance, it would be easy for a state to exclude foreign PoS currencies and promote their own. This could be a positive thing depending on your political perspective. It could also be used to segregate social groups by denying them participation. PoW however, cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.

Finally someone who also realizes this. Although your stance in particular is probably a bit too negative. However, if one really thinks about this he/she would realize it.
This might simplify it for those who do not understand:
In a PoW coin such as Bitcoin:   In order to acquire coins you can buy equipment and mine it yourself (aside from buying from others).
In a PoS coin such as Peercoin: In order to acquire coins you need to find someone who is willing to sell i.e. who is willing to let you be part of it.

PoW however, cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.
cannot exclude anyone that has adequate hashing power.
anyone that has adequate hashing power.
hashing power.

Right, and hashing power grows on trees. And Bitcoin early adopters are not billionaires.

It's called Proof of Work because it's Hard. Otherwise it would be called Proof of Lollygagging.

[herzmeister]

exactly, PoS, if/when scaled up, would not look much different to today's banking industry cartel (just with updated software).