Annoyingly, this guy's reasoning is faulty, but one cannot comment on his 'blog'
An inductive proof (which most mathematicians accept as valid) has exactly the structure he wants to call invalid.
You prove N(0) case, then you prove N(i+1) case in terms of the N(i) case.
This is how proof of stake is structured.
It is true that one must START a proof of stake system in a valid state but then the correctness of a state depends upon the correctness of the state prior.
The argument for POS is not quite a simple as that, but this just shows there is nothing inherently invalid about having the validity of a system depend upon the validity of an earlier state of that system.
MANY, MANY systems have just this kind of guarantee.
p.s. I dont own any ETH, I just hate bone headed thinking...
An inductive proof (which most mathematicians accept as valid) has exactly the structure he wants to call invalid.
You prove N(0) case, then you prove N(i+1) case in terms of the N(i) case.
This is how proof of stake is structured.
It is true that one must START a proof of stake system in a valid state but then the correctness of a state depends upon the correctness of the state prior.
The argument for POS is not quite a simple as that, but this just shows there is nothing inherently invalid about having the validity of a system depend upon the validity of an earlier state of that system.
MANY, MANY systems have just this kind of guarantee.
p.s. I dont own any ETH, I just hate bone headed thinking...