** The sustainable debate: why Ethereum does not migrate towards proof of putting

While the world of blockchain technology continues to evolve, many have expressed their frustration in the face of the domination of proof of work (POW) as a consensual mechanism in Bitcoin. Although the POW is still widely used, some believe that it is time for another stake approach (POS). In this article, we will explore the reasons why Ethereum has further adopted the POS and what implications it could have for the future of blockchain.

The problem with proof of work

For those who are not familiar, proof of work is a consensus mechanism that requires minors to solve complex mathematical problems in order to validate transactions on the Bitcoin network. This process implies a significant computing power, which can be costly in terms of energy and resources. Consequently, the energy consumption required to exploit Bitcoin is substantial, contributing to the environmental impact of the global cryptocurrency market.

Why Ethereum refuses proof of assistance

The Ethereum developer community has actively explored alternative consensus mechanisms, especially PO. However, so far, they have chosen to stick to Pow for several reasons:

• Evolution: Although the pos is less with a high energy intensity than POW, it always requires a significant computing power to validate transactions. This limits the scalability of the Ethereum network and makes it difficult for new users to join.

• Energy efficiency: As mentioned above, the POW is much more economical in energy than PO. Passing to POS, Ethereum should considerably reduce its energy consumption, which would require a major overhaul of its infrastructure.

• Safety: The POS is considered safer than POW because it eliminates the possibility of double expenditure. However, this has aroused concerns about network security as a whole.

The case for proof of implementation

On the other hand, supporters of proof of evidence maintain that it offers several advantages compared to traditional consensus mechanisms:

• Energy efficiency: POS is much more economical in energy than POW, which would considerably reduce its environmental impact.

• Evolution: POS can manage a greater number of transactions without compromising scalability.

• Safety: Although POS is not as sure as POW, it is considered more resistant to 51%attacks.

** What does that mean for Ethereum?

While Ethereum has explored other consensus mechanisms, there are several reasons why we can see a return to the POW:

• Infrastructure challenges: The transition to the POS would require significant upgrades of the Ethereum network and its underlying infrastructure.

• Regulatory pressures

  

  : Governments and regulatory organizations have prompted more strict security measures in the cryptocurrency space. A passage to the POS could be considered too risky given the current regulations.

• Developer community: The majority of Ethereum developers are always determined to use POW, which would make the transition difficult to a different consensus mechanism.

Conclusion

The debate between Pow and POs is underway, the two parties with convincing arguments. While Ethereum has explored alternative consensus mechanisms, the challenges associated with the transition to POS remain significant. However, as the cryptocurrency space continues to evolve, it is likely that we will see more adoption of the POS in the future.

During the meeting, it is essential for developers and enthusiasts to continue to experiment with different consensus mechanisms and to push the limits of what is perhaps on the Ethereum network. Who knows? Perhaps one day we will see a new consensual algorithm emerging which will revolutionize the world of blockchain technology.

Sources:

• «Ethereum 2.