Is POW safer than POS ?

[Crypto]

Any computer system wants to be free from the possibility of hacker attacks, especially if the service is related to money.

So, the main problem is: proof of stake is safer than proof of work?

Experts are worried about it, and there are several skeptics in the community.

Using a Proof-of-Work system, bad actors are cut out thanks to technological and economic disincentives.

In fact, programming an attack to a PoW network is very expensive, and you would need more money than you can be able to steal.

Instead, the underlying PoS algorithm must be as bulletproof as possible because, without especially penalties, a proof of stake-based network could be cheaper to attack.

To solve this issue, Buterin created the Casper protocol, designing an algorithm that can use the set some circumstances under which a bad validator might lose their deposit.

He explained: “Economic finality is accomplished in Casper by requiring validators to submit deposits to participate, and taking away their deposits if the protocol determines that they acted in some way that violates some set of rules (‘slashing conditions’).”

Slashing conditions refer to the circumstances above or laws that a user is not supposed to break.

[yousufatik20]

In case of money related services, every computer wants to have maximum security protection from the potential hackers.

Due to the disincentives in the PoW system, it becomes unattractive to bad actors and has exited. Attacking a PoW network is not cheap, and one might end up spending more than he can steal.

The PoS algorithm needs better protection as it is cheaper to attack. The deposits of the validities serve as collateral, and if they go against the rules and create an invalid block, they will lose their deposit. Both are pretty much safe to be used.

But the PoS system still has the upper hand due to the collateral involved.