Proof Of Stake isn't suitable for a "cryptocurrency". To avoid endless quoting and repeating,
here is a great summary by Andrew Poelstra about why it is not.
Interesting enough the main lie repeated in said article is one made by GMaxwell.
The Nothing at Stake Myth is Literally a
Nothing to Gain.
Stop it.
Nope, it is truthful, ask someone to explain to you what they think they would gain from it.
And I 'll explain why it wastes their time.
It's not a "myth", but a theory. Refute, but no mudslinging/name-calling. We're to learn and find answers.
The Facts are you need a Multistaking Client to even attempt a N@S,
no one has written one, because people that looked at making one realized it would create a PoW style system which actually gains the user nothing but wasting computer resources.
OK, let's be constructive. Explain that, or post links about that.
PoS coins are designed to run on a single chain and follow the stronger chain, which is the one with the most coins and the oldest age.
How does POS consider the strongest chain? Most stake? What stops a group of attackers to collude with most of the "stake", and create healthy looking chains they control?
A entire design change has to be made to make a client run on staking on Multiple chains at the same time, trying to game a single chain
In theory, it's impossible to make this multi-chain client? Honestly, it's the first time I've heard of it, I will ask around about this.
like I said earlier it actually converts PoS into a weird PoW that constantly gobbles up CPU & memory.
By how much? .00000000000001% of the cost of an attack on Bitcoin?
It is like this, say you are calculating a reality, which requires a % of CPU and Memory, now calculate paralleled realities for each fork that you are trying to dominate with your staking resources out to say 100 future blocks with each of those having parallel forks.
With every new parallel fork calculation your CPU & Memory requirements increase exponentially, evolving into another wasteful version of proof of work.
OK, then we're in agreement that POW-style incentives + the game theory works?
Actually explaining that endless calculations that have very little meaning or use are just a waste of resources.
You're trying to imagine Game Theory will protect bitcoin ,
and it would if bitcoin was the only network the miners could mine.
But since the Miners have access to mining multiple networks, they will be true to their greedy nature and play them against each other,
untiil they decide for certain which one gives them personally the most profit.
Which due to the decreased rewards and ever growing reliance on transactions fees,
the transaction fees profit will lead the miners away from bitcoin as LN will dominate it's fees.
Your theory. OK.
The Majority of PoS coins Destroy the Transactions fees, so dominating a PoS chain won't earn you anything extra.
Your rewards are all you get, and that is fixed by the code and time, even if multistaking was not insanely stupid waste of resources their is literally nothing to gain from it.
What about another POS coin killing the competition?
PoW will destroy itself, due to miner greed and energy waste,
it was a failed design the moment ASICS were introduced and the poor blocked from mining.
No, I was asking, what about a competing POS coin attacking another POS coin?
So let's end this stupid myth,
Gmax why don't you write a Multistaking PoS client and destroy all PoS coins,
Surely that will raise the price of all PoW coins for all PoW holders.
Unless of course you like to admit you were wrong. 
It's not a myth, it's a
theory that SHOULD be explored in my opinion.
Funny , how the guy who came up with the so called theory , has done absolutely nothing to make it happen in ~6 years.
I mean he could kill ethereum overnight , if he can release a multistaking client for it.
But yet he sits on his hands, maybe you should ask GMAX directly why he does not write one to totally end the PoS/PoW debates.
* Because it won't do anything but waste his time.*I will say it again, it's a theory that should be explored, and discussion open-ended. Why are you mad? It's not a personal attack vs. you.
FYI:
If one really studies the PoW verses PoS debates.
One thing they learn is PoW has to end rewards and switch to a Transaction fee based economic model.
*Which causes all kinds of problems for miner profitability , due to the winner take all design in PoW.*
There's no written rule, Dogecoin has infinite supply. Unpopular opinion, but I believe Bitcoin could hard fork, and change supply rules IF there was consensus.
It is Satoshi's rule for bitcoin, and he wrote it directly in the code.
And if you want to see the results of endless rewards and why it is a failure,
look at mooncoin or newyorkcoin, both PoW coins.
Is Satoshi, God?
Mooncoin and NYcoin failed because of other reasons. Look at the names of those coins.
Core Devs seem to weak to hard fork , otherwise they would have hard forked segwit , which would have been a lot smarter than what they did with the soft fork retardation.
Another discussion/debate for another topic.
In PoS, Ultra Low Inflation Rewards can continue forever and by burning all transaction fees to keep supply in check.
This also allows a low fixed transaction fee model in PoS which is impossible in a PoW model that needs ever increasing fees to offset the loss in their winner take all ever increasing energy wasting design.
I believe the pro-POS have also never proven convincingly that long range/nothing at stake attacks are impossible too. It's an open debate.
You can open debate anything, but PoS has been here since 2013.
With most of them having trusted-3rd-party checkpoints. Why? What do they fear?
Nothing at Stake has been a Nothing to Gain , which is why in 7 years their have been no N@S attacks whatsoever on any PoS coin.
In theory a competing POS coin will gain if they attack another POS coin.
Long Range History attacks can happen to a weak PoW or a weak PoS coin,
any coin with any strength will easily block long range attacks.
FYI:
N@S nonsense myth and Long Range History attacks are two different attacks
It's a merely theory, until something happens.
