Hi Igor. Unfortunately, Ethereum is no where near decentralized as bitcoin and has had hard forks in the past to remediate stolen coins in the past. Bitcoin has been up and running for 13 years, 24/7 without any hacks.

Dominance is irrelevant with all of the scam coins out there.

Another very important difference is what you mentioned: PoS vs. bitcoin’s PoW.

There’s two popular ways to defend a blockchain against systemic abuse of the longest-chain-is-valid chain consensus protocol: Proof-of-work and Proof-of-Stake.

A great summary of the differences is provided by Jason Lowery of US Space Force:

He argues that Proof-of-Work is significantly more secure than Proof-of-Stake. Why? It’s not hard to understand why if you understand why we use physical power to defend our access to legacy property (ex. land):

“Proof-of-Work is a non-zero sum defense protocol. There is no limit to the amount of power/hash that honest nodes can add to the network to defend it against 51% attacks. Therefore, users always maintain the ability to countervail the control authority of attackers by adding more hash. They can also continually deter attacks by adding more hash (hence why BTC’s power usage is GOOD for users for the same reason that military power is GOOD for defense).

Proof-of-Stake is a zero-sum defense protocol. There’s a hard limit to the amount of stake that honest nodes can add to the network to defend it against 51% attacks, and those users must trust anonymous attackers not to exceed it. If attackers do exceed the limit, users are *literally* powerless to countervail the attack. Moreover, it is impossible to know how many users need to collude to combine their stake to attack the network, because it is impossible to know who owns what stake (this isn’t a problem in PoW b/c you can literally see/touch/destroy hashing infrastructure).

PoS advocates will claim that honest nodes will have the ability to “slash” belligerent stake, but there’s no way to know what stake to slash if top stakers denial-of-service attack the network by withholding valid TXs from target users. Slashing also does nothing to prevent the network from having the same fundamental systemic vulnerability (ditto for forking) so it does virtually nothing to stop attacks from happening over and over again.

PoS advocates will then proceed to argue that this type of network degradation is fine so long as honest users can control some % of stake to maintain some % access to the ledger. In other words, they will argue that the unimpeachable power of attackers is ok because some of the targets’ TX requests will be able to survive the attack. Of course, by making this argument, they tacitly admit the network is inherently inegalitarian and defenseless to this type of network degradation.”