This is not a useful rant. 90% of it is bad and completely unconvincing argument by analogy.
> Everything in our world ultimately translates back to energy, at the lowest level. You are energy. I am energy. Blockchain is energy.
The remaining 10% could plausibly be gesturing at a real argument, but it's way too vague and hand-wavy. It repeatedly says PoS is impossible, but then ends up admitting that it boils down to complicated questions about the stability of certain equilibrium.
The idea that somehow the law of conservation of energy applies to the security of block chains, or computing in general. The fact that tweets 1-20 come from a cryptocurrency developer is terrifying, because it reads like a speculator trying to drive down Ethereum. I get what the developer is trying to say, but it all falls apart once they tie "electricity expended in Proof of X directly maps to amount of ledger security".
Tweets 21+ are actually reasonable and well thought out. It's that whole nonsense in the first 20 that just poisons the whole thread.
I completely agree that PoS assumes that bad actors are at best a group of Chaotic Evil backstabbers and that there'd never be a massive organization of Lawful Evil people rewriting the block chain. Furthermore, it doesn't account for a group of possibly Chaotic Good miners "correcting" a coin heist by rewriting the block chain. It is the stance of a majority of cryptocurrency participants that such a power is corrupting and that no matter what, the block chain must stand immutable.
Reduced, the assertion made is: Because Proof of Stake requires less energy and is less secure than Proof of Work, all block chains are secure if and only if computing blocks requires a large investment of energy.
I don't think Proof of Stake is sufficient evidence to make that assertion. The source makes me even more skeptical, as they are invested in Proof of Work's continued dominance.
> Everything in our world ultimately translates back to energy, at the lowest level. You are energy. I am energy. Blockchain is energy.
The remaining 10% could plausibly be gesturing at a real argument, but it's way too vague and hand-wavy. It repeatedly says PoS is impossible, but then ends up admitting that it boils down to complicated questions about the stability of certain equilibrium.