For some time now I have been trying to find some clear and objective comparison of proof-of-stake (PoS) and proof-of-work-based (PoW) consensus protocols. Unfortunately, pretty much every comparison I have found has been written by a partisan of one or another coin, and has been strongly colored by the writer's opinions of each specific coin's virtues and defects (which are, more often than not, tangential to the formal properties of its consensus protocol).
What I would like to find is a formal comparison of PoS and PoW. By this I mean a comparison that models each protocol (including their possible variations) formally, in idealized forms that are independent of any real-world coin, and in such a way that it becomes possible to characterize objectively the relative strengths and weaknesses of these idealizations. Such characterizations may include, for example, expressions for cost per transaction, or the probability of success a particular type of attack, in terms of the values of various model parameters.
I realize that such work is difficult to do, and that it is rarely definitive, as there is always a gap, often a considerable one, between theory and practice. In other words, factors that cannot be adequately captured by the models may ultimately be decisive in practice.
Still, even with these caveats, such formal work can still help to identify and clarify the main structural features of the real-world problem that impinge on the comparison.
I would appreciate any pointers (to papers, books, individual researchers, etc.).