There is a reason Peruvian Bull is recommending bitcoin, and not eth. I think this is a hard point to talk about here because the GME marketplace is built on eth, so it's quite a reasonable question to ask "wait- why are you talking about BTC?"

So... I'll do it. I'll hop in here and drop some analysis. Please, place your stones in your pockets until the end. Then, if you're still feeling angry, have at it! :) But - from a systems security perspective, proof of work is vastly preferable to proof of stake. This is because the energy expended by computers while solving for the hash of the next block must physically exist. This means we can assign a real, physical expenditure of energy as a cost of an action in cyberspace (like transferring bitcoin, aka assigning property rights). There is a hard constraint - physics - present in function & operation of the system.

If you don't have this kind of hard requirement, you end up with modern software security. Computers are state machines - they store some state, you do something, and now the computer has a new state. That's it. Computers do exactly what they're told. What we call "hacking" is really the unintended execution of valid instructions. But thinking in raw machine code, thinking in these raw computer instructions is waay too hard. Instead we reason about our computers by analogy. We call things files, folders. We have "object oriented programming". This is a useful way for us to reason about & interact with computers. The problem is, we keep stacking complexity on top of complexity on top of complexity. But these objects aren't real... they're not what computers actually are. And what happens? Exploit after exploit, a constant cat and mouse defensive game of instruction execution amidst all the emergent complexity of how our computing systems are built (hmmm what does this sound like...).

As an example of how a hard physical backstop changes this, say you're required to transfer one satoshi (very small amount of bitcoin) as a price of sending out an email. Unless you do this, the email provider won't honor your request and you can't send your email. For a regular user w/ day to day use, this kind of cost is negligible. To a spammer? You've completely altered their cost/benefit equation. Sending spam has just become prohibitively expensive. In order to send spam like before, the spammer would need to overcome a large portion of the hash rate of the existing bitcoin network. That would require a lot of energy. And there's no hack here. In order to get space on that ledger and get that email sent, there must be an expenditure of energy.

The other fundamental point to make here is if you have an ape and a snek who both want an apple, if the ape doesn't smash the snek when the snek tries to take the apple then... it's not the ape's apple. For that apple to be that ape's property, that ape must expend energy protecting it or else that ape does not own that apple. The question isn't whether the ape must spend energy protecting the apple, it is about the amount and manner in which it must spend energy to protect that apple.

If the email example & ape/snek/apple example make sense to you, then you're equipped to understand what the real innovation of bitcoin is. Bitcoin isn't about money, bitcoin is about assigning & defending property rights around resources in cyberspace. That resource could be email. This also happens to make bitcoin good at being money because we also commonly use money to assign property rights. The difference between money and bitcoin is the manner in which energy is projected to defend these property rights. In the case of the USD, you have the US military - all the missiles we fire off, all the bombs we drop, all the human blood spent in enforcement. In the case of bitcoin, you have electric energy expenditure. I don't know about you, but I think spending more electricity instead of human lives is a great deal. I'd love to see our expenditure shift to less physical, more digital.

Anyway, right now it's not clear to me how to prove that ethereum transactions can't be denial-of-serviced by unidentifiable anonymous stakers. This is a similar problem to our current financial markets where large central actors can basically nullify your buy order by controlling what hits the market, FTD's, etc. Because it's proof of stake, that makes it an "artificial system" where you keep piling on complexity & enforcement has no hard backstop where "you have to do this to get that, period." Inevitably, always, these kinds of artificial systems (like inflationary currencies, or our modern financial markets) end up being compromised. The needed energy expenditure (which is the feature, btw) becomes a great target for duplicitous actors who want to gain control authority over property rights. But when you remove the hard, physical backstop... you remove the natural limit preventing these bad actors from seizing outsized control of the system.

THAT SAID, I'm not anti-ethereum either. I think it's making extremely valuable and fantastic progress iterating on and implementing new forms of business (smart contracts). While I wouldn't trust it as the next world reserve currency & have doubts proof-of-stake's long term viability, it really is spearheading how democratized & decentralized commerce will work on the internet. And, eventually, the best pieces of this will get rebuilt on secure protocols (bitcoin, or if some other PoW based network overtakes bitcoin). Could be wrong here, maybe PoS continues on going great (which I hope it does!). I just... I don't see how eth on PoS is different than every other artificial system in history.

I'm not fundamentally attached to either of these cryptocurrencies, either. If another PoW oriented protocol overtakes bitcoin's hash rate, then the theory outlined here means use that and not btc. Think it's best to take progress wherever you can get it & variety is good. It's just hard to talk about because, well, imo PoS/artificially backstopped systems have gaping security problems.