If PoS has loop holes then, Why PoS?

[Malvika_sitlani]

As per my understanding after read a few articles of PoS. Proof of stake where the miner stakes his/her funds for certain duration and one with higher stake and age will have can add the next block. It was mentioned that Some cryptocurrencies are vulnerable to Fake Stake attacks, where an attacker uses no or very little stake to crash an affected node.

If PoS has the above loophole then why the new tokens like Libra are using PoS? why not PoW?

Please share your thoughts.

Source: https://www.batchmaster.co.in/blog/top-9-reasons-why-pos-systems-are-important/

[1714104608]

1714104608

[1714104608]

1714104608

[1714104608]

1714104608

[JeotQ]

You sound very confusing,POS doesnt need to work any block thing like you stated,the way you sound seem like you are pointing to masternode,we have different types of POS and all you need is hold some portion of the POS coin or token to get rewards based on the project,as for masternodes vs POS there is a difference  so go through this link to learn the difference
https://coinguides.org/staking-vs-masternodes/

[Chlotide]

I understood just a few BTC forks that use PoS have this exact vulnerability and also most of them were contacted by "The Decentralized Systems Lab at the University of Illinois" (the guys who reported the "fake stake attack") and most of them patched them up.

The way I see it is that there is a main currency, BTC, and the others are just on testnet. They try all sorts of tricks, new approaches, innovative implementations to make the blockchain better. Really hope they make more and more breakthroughs as these can later be patched on to BTC to improve it, on the security department, anonymity ( not just pseudo-anonymity), scalability etc.

PoS has it's faults, but and the very core is a pretty well thought out system.

One more thing... Libra is not a token! Is not crypto! It's just paypal 2.0 . Indeed...looks like it is, but isn't really. They "sort of" use a blockchain, if they had to choose between PoW & PoS it was a no-brainner. Do you imagine Zuckerberg allowing you to print your own money? There will be a handful on nodes (rumoured at ~$10M) sold to a handful of mega corporations that will validate the blocks. The rich get richer... but for a fee to FaceBook  

[hd49728]

Proof of Stake does nothing wrong with blockchain networks, if teams can set up good specifications for it. Acceptable inflation rate and acceptable, fair block rewards between stakers and masternodes will be better, because over inflation will result in serious dumps over time when stakers or masternode investors want to cash out to get both their capital back and get profits from their investment. I don't spend my time to point out shitty stakable coins, that got dumped to nearly useless price, but you can see DASH, which is a good coin, with masternode operations. I don't see serious things with DASH, compared to shit PoS/MN coins that exist abundantly around us.

[pooya87]

just because one implementation of PoS had certain flaws and opened up attack vectors it doesn't mean every implementation of it is also having the same flaw. the fake stake attacks in this case affects certain altcoins not all.
the problem with PoS is not that either. the problem is with the design itself. you are basically giving money (profit) to anybody who has money. the more they have they more profit they earn. this design is economically flawed and in comparison PoW where you have to "work" to earn money is superior.

[vladimirhf]

this design is economically flawed and in comparison PoW where you have to "work" to earn money is superior.

you have to "work" with expensive equipment, that needs constant renovation; there is an investment anyway.
the price of energy makes it profitable only in a few countries. you can't compete with a few big pools.

[nakamura12]

I'm not sure with my answer because i'm not an expert at PoS but my guess why people still use PoS is because the process can still secure the network and gradually produces new coins over time without consuming significant computational power in some coins. It is true that PoS is not an ideal option for a distributed consensus protocol or having flaws (as you have stated) when you want to use it or implement it but not all coins can/will be affected by it's flaws/disadvantages because PoS have different types of process/procedure that it does to keep the coin secured as possible and that is why some coins have disadvantages/flaws as we have discussed about PoS. While PoS have flaws or disadvantages, some group of people create their own "HYBRID COIN" where their coin used a "HYBRID CONSENSUS SYSTEM or using "TWO CONSENSUS MECHANISM" and that is Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS) just like Decred using these two consensus system.

Implementing PoS have also advantages that will be mentioned below:

1.) It doesn't consume large quantities of electricity.
2.) Reduces centralization risks.
3.) Ability to use economic penalties to make various forms of 51% attacks vastly "more expensive".