Considering the core algorithms behind proof of stake have been around since the 80's, and that Bitcoin's core contribution is usually cited as PoW, there are probably some good parts.
It's a weird concept to accept but actually the really interesting and useful property of PoW is that you can provide a proof that you destroyed physical resources (provably wasting electricity) which are committed to one and exactly one interpretation of history.
Stake based systems lock or burn or manage coins, but there's no provable tether from those coins (defined only within the system) to the real world.
PoW has an undeniable tether to the real world in the form of waste.
> useful property of PoW is that you can provide a proof that you destroyed physical resources
Thought experiment:
Say there's a PoW currency A, and PoS currency B.
Alice mines A.
Now Bob wants currency A, but he can't afford to mine currency A, because he needs special hardware.
So Bob exchanges currency B for currency A with Alice. Alice now holds some currency B, and Bob is happy with A. Now the question is, would Alice see that she "destroyed physical resources" for currency B? (Yes, to Alice she had to destroy physical resources)
Later, Alice wants to transact with Charlie, who also holds currency B. She transfers her B to Charlie, that was bought using A. Would Charlie care that Alice had to "destroy physical resources" to get B? (No, that information is useless in a PoS system)
Some time in the future, currency B becomes very popular (as it's just as secure and not wasting resources like currency A). Alice wants more B too, so she exchanges her B with the masses. Eventually, currency B takes over A in popularity, and by that time, Alice has exchanged all her A for B. The question is, would Alice now view that to get B, she had to "destroy physical resources"? Would that fact matter if she continues to transact with Charlie?
>Bob exchanges currency B for currency A with Alice. Alice now holds some currency B
There is no reason for Alice to want B, a less secure money than A which they already hold. If Alice were perfect mathematician, this exchange would never occur.
I'm failing to see your point. I do not know why, nether don't care, why Alice wants to buy currency B. Maybe she just wanted to buy some coffee from Charlie, and she was comfortable that her transaction didn't burn thousands of dollars of electricity to verify it? Maybe it was early in the morning? Faster block times means she'll get her coffee sooner. If that was the reason, let's hope she was satisfied with her coffee.
I also do not care why currency B got so popular, but I suspect it may have been because of the coffee ICO ;-)
Oh, and then there were cryptocurrencies C, D and F too, but that's a different thought experiment.
