Is Bitcoin POW to POS the key?

[panganib999]

People are thinking what's the best way to get rid of this blockchain network congestion.

Network congestion is a problem for us because it affects the fee. The normal fee is just around $1 but this month we are experiencing a very high fee which is unaffordable to most people.

We found out that the reason of this issue is because of brc-20 tokens, they use Bitcoin blockchain. And since Bitcoin's blockchain is only process 7-10 transactions per second which is not enough to manage all the transaction if we included the brc-20 tokens.

Now, is the problem will be fixed if brc-20 tokens will be removed?

Yes, very possible, but how? Brc20 tokens keeps improving and lot of brc20 token is being launch everyday.
The total confirmed market cap of brc20 tokens that is listed in Coinmarketcap is $3b with a $1b trading volume which is very difficult to stop.

The other solution to fix network congestion is to increase the block size. Is increasing the block size fix network congestion?
Definitely yes, and there is no need to eradicate brc20 tokens.

But in what way? Is it really possible to increase the block size of Bitcoin? For sure there's a reason why Nakamoto put only a very limited block size.


I have found another solution to remove this obstacle in Bitcoin but I don't know if this idea is acceptable to the majority. If you remember what happen to Ethereum way back 2017, it encountered this such problem.
They made Ethereum to POS from POW as a solution to this problem, and it's called ETH 2.0

If there will be a Bitcoin 2.0 or a change of network from POW to POS then not only the network congestion is being fixed but many more, and also it can reduced the energy consumption.

Honestly, I don't think the switch of consensus mechanism is going to do wonders for bitcoin. I mean there is a reason why all these years, bitcoin remained to be PoW instead of submitting to the Proof of Stake meta outside the bitcoin network.

For one, networks like Ethereum are known to be very versatile and all-encompassing. You got an idea, Ethereum can make it work for you. So do other networks that popped into existence in the past few years. Bitcoin's not really known for this since besides the fact that it has a very low scalability propensity, it also doesn't have that extra capability to handle projects with innovative motifs in them. Prime example being Ordinals. Besides that, it would seem as though the whole network, developers and consumers like us included, made it a point to not actually use bitcoin for anything other than investing, trading, and sending money from far off lands. Nothing wrong with it honestly, but it would signify the lack of need for us to switch to PoS and jeopardize bitcoin's otherwise robust security just so it could cater to a wider audience.

There are other ways we could integrate a solution that would make the bitcoin network faster and cheaper, employing a robust layer 2 off-chain that would facilitate transactions off the blockchain being one of the biggest examples I can think of right now. But if I were to rate consensus mechanism switch, I'd put it at the bottom of the solution's list.

[icalical]

.

Also banning Brc20 junkies from the bitcoin network become questionable and people may argue why there is censorship coming up in true decentralization so its kind of uncertainty.

Decentralized is not the same as anarchism, it doesn't mean that we couldn't have rules for Bitcoin. There has been several BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposals) implemented before, so there is no reason for a new BIP that reject ordinals transaction to be applied if 95% of the miners approved the new rules. It will still be decentralized, because even after 95% approve the BIP then community need to upgrade their Bitcoin core, if they are on the same page with miners.

[adaseb]

First of all, ETH didn’t move to POS to get cheaper fees, they did it mostly for environmental reasons and they didn’t like POW because it was a waste of energy. As soon as POS went live, the fees were pretty much identical.

BTC won’t switch to POS, there is nothing in its future about doing such a thing. Ethereum is different because ever since it’s launch in 2016, it’s goal was to go POS but it was never bitcoins future. So there will be no POS for bitcoin don’t worry.

[NotATether]

If there will be a Bitcoin 2.0 or a change of network from POW to POS then not only the network congestion is being fixed but many more, and also it can reduced the energy consumption.

Read this, and then tell me whether you still think PoS is a good idea.

[pooya87]

Now, is the problem will be fixed if brc-20 tokens will be removed?

There is no such thing as BRC-20 in Bitcoin protocol. What they refer to on their centralized website is just arbitrary data on bitcoin blockchain.

Yes, very possible, but how? Brc20 tokens keeps improving and lot of brc20 token is being launch everyday.
The total confirmed market cap of brc20 tokens that is listed in Coinmarketcap is $3b with a $1b trading volume which is very difficult to stop.

Stopping an attack is never about how much money the attackers have at their disposal. It is always about methods the protocol uses to prevent it. For example if you have billions of dollars, you still wouldn't be able to perform a 51% attack on bitcoin because the protocol and the reality of the world (won't be able to get that much ASICs) prevents it.

The other solution to fix network congestion is to increase the block size.

Wrong. Increasing the block size fixes natural congestion caused by increased adoption. It will not do anything to prevent a congestion caused by an attack. In fact more capacity could mean cheaper and consequently much worse attack.

If there will be a Bitcoin 2.0 or a change of network from POW to POS then not only the network congestion is being fixed but many more, and also it can reduced the energy consumption.

That would be like saying "my nose itches and as a solution I will saw off my left leg".

Proof of Stake is a flawed protocol and a flawed concept. Not to mention that it does absolutely nothing to prevent a spam attack! That's simply because no matter HOW you process the blocks, the abusers can still inject a large amount of junk into the chain as long as the consensus rules allows it!

The only reason why a centralized shitcoin like Ethereum switched to PoS was because the centralized authority behind this project held a massive premine of 72 million ethers and they wanted to both gain full control over the network and have a solid revenue without having to liquidate their premined bags.

[God bless u]

If there will be a Bitcoin 2.0 or a change of network from POW to POS then not only the network congestion is being fixed but many more, and also it can reduced the energy consumption.

I don't think Upgrading Bitcoin network into version 2.0 would solve these problems.
as you can see Ethereum Gas problem still there even after upgrading into 2.0 and becoming a POS.
other than that Ethereum have a Team behind, a group of developers. and Bitcoin is not controlled by anyone. I am not an expert, sorry if I am wrong but I think it is technically not possible to do that.
also what about all those miners who will go jobless after that?

[m2017]

It is true that Ethereum converted from PoW to PoS but the transaction fee did not reduce. So I do not know the problem you meant that Ethereum faced in the paste.

It would be good to analyze the changes that occurred in the Ethereum network after the conversion from PoW to PoS. Such as the number of active users, the total number of transactions, etc. Such statistics would help explain why transaction fee have not decreased.

There are coins that make use of PoW that are cheaper than Ethereum transactions. Examples are litecoin, doge et cetera.

Transactions in the networks of these coins are not only cheaper than Ethereum transactions, but these coins themselves are much cheaper than Ethereum (even their current total value).

Whether transactions in the networks of these coins will remain as cheap if their current value increases to the level of Ethereum (as well as the number of active users increases) is another question.

Converting from PoW to PoS is not the solution.

Was such a transition discussed in the BTC-community?

[goldkingcoiner]

DO NOT IMPLEMENT POS! It is a trap!

Do you guys have any idea of the irreversible damage this will do to Bitcoin? Especially now, with ETFs being brought out to the crowd of traditional investors by institutional investors? Bitcoin needs to remain free! A POS will ensure centralization immediately after implementation! It will not lower transaction fees as much as you hope!

Look at what happened to Ethereum straight after POS implementation: 2 addresses owned almost 50% of all ETH!

The moment 2 people have the right to decide on how the blockchain functions, just because they own the most coins, it becomes centralized. It becomes regulatable. It becomes a backdoor CBDC!

This is exactly what the government wants. They will be able to decide who gets to use it, and which transactions are valid and which are not!

[btc78]

Let us disregard first the fact that the switch from POW to POS could help the congestion, is it possible to change Bitcoin from POW to POS?

Well, yes but it will for sure face many difficulties and the community will be having some challenges i mean just with bitcoin’s size alone transitioning from POW to POS will already serve as a challenge in itself

If we were to change from POW to POS it would not be easy and we would have to rely to miners heavily

[franky1]

Let us disregard first the fact that the switch from POW to POS could help the congestion, is it possible to change Bitcoin from POW to POS?

Well, yes but it will for sure face many difficulties and the community will be having some challenges i mean just with bitcoin’s size alone transitioning from POW to POS will already serve as a challenge in itself

If we were to change from POW to POS it would not be easy and we would have to rely to miners heavily

asics do not choose transactions.. POOL managers do
convincing a mining pool that it can still select transactions, claim a reward but not need to then pay out individual mining asic owners could actually be a achievable thing..

not suggesting it should happen. just saying it is capable of happening
if core went completely numbskull to want to change code to make the bitcoin node software operate as such its more then possible as any other brand of node does not have the ability to counter propose or offer majority avoidance of core changes. so yes it is possible to change. though not recommended to change

.. changing to PoS wont change the transaction selection. because the transaction selection has never been related to PoW (sha256 hashing)

[coolcoinz]

The normal fee is just around $1 but this month we are experiencing a very high fee which is unaffordable to most people.

What is normal? In 2017 the average fee was already $3 so how did you come up with that idea that $1 is normal?  In 2015 "normal" was below $1, but in 2017 "normal" was $5. In a network that's constantly growing you can't expect the fees to stay at the same level.

Ordinals made it so that we're at least 4x the fee we would be paying if the fees were growing with the network, but even if we ban ordinals, don't expect fees to go back to $1.
In 2024 you can expect 2 things to happen. Bitcoin will go into another post-halving FOMO rally and fee will grow with as it went up in 2018 and 2021. It's more likely that $10 will become the new normal than $2. $1 fee? Forget about it.

[Charles-Tim]

Was such a transition discussed in the BTC-community?

I do not think so. The only PoS that is likely possible would be the Spiderchain which is also called the drive chain or something. The proposal is in a way the PoW and the onchain transaction will not be affected as it will also be like a side chain or a other layer 2. But for PoS to be proposed directly, there is nothing like that.

[DapanasFruit]

I am sure that the whole Bitcoin community would never give a nod to transform BTC from PoW to PoS as this is one of the strongest feature of Bitcoin we think should not be tinkered with. With the ongoing congestion and the resulting high fees happening again, developers should be looking for ways to somehow solve the ongoing problem and should have a roadmap for long-term solutions.