add further reading

Author: jmcook1186

src/content/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/pos-vs-pow/index.md

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Attacking the network can mean preventing the chain from finalizing, or ensuring
 
 The lowest cost of attack is >33% of the total stake. An attacker holding >33% of the total stake can cause a finality delay simply by going offline. This is a fairly minor problem for the network as there is a mechanism known as the "inactivity leak" that leaks stake away from offline validators until the online majority represent 66% of the stake and can finalize the chain again. It is also theoretically possible for an attacker to cause double finality with a little over 33% of the total stake by creating two blocks instead of one when they are asked to be a block producer, and then double vote with all of their validators. Each fork only requires 50% of the remaining honest validators to see each block first, so if they manage to time their messages just right, they may be able to finalize both forks. This has low likelihood of success, but in the event that an attacker was able to cause double-finality, the Ethereum community would have to make a decision to follow one or other fork, in which case the attackers validators would necessarily be slashed on the other.
 
-With >33% of the total stake an attacker has a chance to have a minor (finality delay) or more severe (double finality) effect on the Ethereum network. With more than 14,000,000 ETH staked on the network and a representative price of $1000/ETH, the minimum cost to mount these attacks is `1000 x 14,000,000 x 0.33 = $4,620,000,000`. The attacker would lose this money through slashing and also be ejected from the network. In order to attack again, they would have to accumulate >33% of the stake again, and burn it again. Each attempt to attack the network would cost >$4.6 billion (at $1000/ETH and 14M ETH staked). The attacker is also ejected from the network when they are slashed and they have to join an activation queue to rejoin. This means the rate of repeat attack is limited not only to the rate the attacker can accumulate >33% of the total stake but also the time it takes to onboard all their validators onto the network.
+With >33% of the total stake an attacker has a chance to have a minor (finality delay) or more severe (double finality) effect on the Ethereum network. With more than 14,000,000 ETH staked on the network and a representative price of $1000/ETH, the minimum cost to mount these attacks is `1000 x 14,000,000 x 0.33 = $4,620,000,000`. The attacker would lose this money through slashing and also be ejected from the network. In order to attack again, they would have to accumulate >33% of the stake again, and burn it again. Each attempt to attack the network would cost >$4.6 billion (at $1000/ETH and 14M ETH staked). The attacker is also ejected from the network when they are slashed and they have to join an activation queue to rejoin. This means the rate of repeat attack is limited not only to the rate the attacker can accumulate >33% of the total stake but also the time it takes to onboard all their validators onto the network. Each time the attacker attacks they get a lot poorer and the rest of the community get richer thanks to the resulting supply shock.
 
 Other attacks, such as 51% attacks or finality reversion with 66% of the total stake require substantially more ETH and are therefore much more costly to the attacker.
 
@@ -49,3 +49,13 @@ The gold standard for Ethereum is for validators to be run locally on home compu
 Proof-of-stake is a carbon-cheap way to secure the blockchain. Under proof-of-work miners compete for the right to mine a block. Miners are more successful when they can perform calculations faster, incentivizing investment in hardware and energy consumption. This was observed for Ethereum before it switched to proof-of-stake. Shortly before the transition to proof-of-stake, Ethereum was consuming approximately 78 TWh/yr - as much as a small country. However, switching to proof-of-stake reduced this energy expenditure by ~99.98%. Proof-of-stake made Ethereum an energy-efficient, low carbon platform.
 
 More on [Ethereum's energy consumption](/energy-consumption)
+
+## Issuance
+
+Proof-of-stake Ethereum can pay for its security by issing far fewer coins than proof-of-work Ethereum because validators do not have to pay high electricity costs. This means ETH can be less inflationary, or even deflationary when large amounts of ETH are burned. This means proof-of-stake Ethereum's security is cheaper than under proof-of-work.
+
+## Further Reading {#further-reading}
+
+[Vitalik's Proof-of-stake design philosophy](https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/a-proof-of-stake-design-philosophy-506585978d51)
+[Vitalik's proof-of-stake FAQs](https://vitalik.ca/general/2017/12/31/pos_faq.html#what-is-proof-of-stake)
+["Simply Explained" video on pos vs pow](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3EFi_POhps)