Scalability and its Effects on the Environment

[panganib999]

Scalability is a project's ability to take into account the upsurge in consumers, transactions within its network, as well as expansion to better cater a larger array of audiences, regardless of common barriers like distance.

It is also not unbeknownst to us that cryptocurrency gets flak on how it pollutes our environment. Most environmentalists note of the cryptocurrency industry's operations that as of now is still largely dependent on non-renewable resources as "environmentally-detrimental". So the solution of some cryptocurrency projects in the market is to switch to a different consensus mechanism, from the usual proof-of-work that is not only time-consuming, but is also detrimental to the environment in a sense that the longer a transaction takes to process, the more energy it requires to operate, to the new and improved proof-of-stake. Recently Ethereum became one of these cryptocurrencies who switched to a different mechanism, allowing not only for better operability within the Ethereum Network, but also for better scalability, since a faster network could always support larger bases of operation without issues.

With cryptocurrency rising on the preface of technology, I think it's high time that we start creating projects that not only takes into account the future of the project itself, but more importantly the world it is being built upon.

[hugeblack]

There are two ways to solve any problem, the right way, which requires time and does not include changing the overall approach and the fast way.
What Ethereum has done is a quick fix that won't solve the scalability problem and will cause bigger problems in the future.
POS is back to bank system in new terms
Just as happened with Bitcoin Cash by increasing the block size to more than 2 megabytes and other quick solutions that “meet the market’s desires.”

[DVlog]

There are two ways to solve any problem, the right way, which requires time and does not include changing the overall approach and the fast way.
What Ethereum has done is a quick fix that won't solve the scalability problem and will cause bigger problems in the future.
POS is back to bank system in new terms
Just as happened with Bitcoin Cash by increasing the block size to more than 2 megabytes and other quick solutions that “meet the market’s desires.”

There is also a security issue. POS is not a battle-proven system like POW in terms of protocol security. And as you have already noted POS is back in the bank system in new terms which is more concerning. Now a validator is a significantly large holding that can influence the validation of the transaction. If somehow ethereum came mainstream we will see most of the owners of large validators will be the banks.

[HeRetiK]

[...] So the solution of some cryptocurrency projects in the market is to switch to a different consensus mechanism, from the usual proof-of-work that is not only time-consuming, but is also detrimental to the environment in a sense that the longer a transaction takes to process, the more energy it requires to operate [...]

The energy usage of a PoW-based cryptocurrency is a function of (1) the cost of energy, (2) the cost of hardware / infrastructure, (3) block subsidy / transaction fees and (4) the exchange rate of the given cryptocurrency to pay for (1) and (2). There is absolutely no meaningful correlation between the energy usage of PoW-schemes and transaction speed or throughput. PoS-based systems may be able to decrease block intervals a tad bit more than PoW-based systems, but that just adds centralization (ie. making it harder to run full nodes) on top of centralization (ie. caused by the way PoS does away with the checks and balances of PoW and consolidates control over the network to a few exchanges and whales).

Put differently, increasing transaction throughput at the base layer always comes at the cost of decentralization and permissionlessness, regardless of whether we're talking about PoW, PoS or other consensus systems. Accordingly -- short of regressing to a more complicated form of centralized banking -- scalability needs to take place via 2nd layer solutions. Unfortunately the potential for scalability on those is usually ignored when PoW's energy usage is discussed. In part due to lack of knowledge, I'm sure, but probably also because it's easier to just scapegoat PoW outright.

[Fortify]

Scalability is a project's ability to take into account the upsurge in consumers, transactions within its network, as well as expansion to better cater a larger array of audiences, regardless of common barriers like distance.

It is also not unbeknownst to us that cryptocurrency gets flak on how it pollutes our environment. Most environmentalists note of the cryptocurrency industry's operations that as of now is still largely dependent on non-renewable resources as "environmentally-detrimental". So the solution of some cryptocurrency projects in the market is to switch to a different consensus mechanism, from the usual proof-of-work that is not only time-consuming, but is also detrimental to the environment in a sense that the longer a transaction takes to process, the more energy it requires to operate, to the new and improved proof-of-stake. Recently Ethereum became one of these cryptocurrencies who switched to a different mechanism, allowing not only for better operability within the Ethereum Network, but also for better scalability, since a faster network could always support larger bases of operation without issues.

With cryptocurrency rising on the preface of technology, I think it's high time that we start creating projects that not only takes into account the future of the project itself, but more importantly the world it is being built upon.

At the root of the problem lies the idea that we already have payment networks like Visa, Banking or even Paypal that exist just via simple databases with an API on top of those for secure communication. For cryptocurrency to be able to truly say it is better than these existing networks, it needs to be able to calculate both at the same speed and also with the same level of energy usage as these existing platforms. It is a difficult challenge set down and it might be able to carry a tiny excess since it is decentralized in nature, but essentially it is still quite far away from being able to call itself as energy efficient as existing networks - so it will continue to get flak on this front for a while to come.