cryptoknowmics.com
The question "Should changes be made to the Bitcoin protocol to lower consumption?" is complex. This is because so many factors can influence it. Indeed, the environmental impact of Bitcoin is hard to quantify. Moreover, many of the concerns are exaggerated, based on faulty assumptions and misunderstandings of the protocol's operation. If you are a Bitcoiner, you most likely feel the same way about the Bitcoin protocol. 
Exaggerated Power Consumption of The Bitcoin Protocol
The power consumption of the Bitcoin protocol is vast. Still, it is comparable to the energy consumption of about a dozen utility-scale nuclear reactors in the U.S., which provides 20 percent of its electricity. While the amount of energy bitcoin uses is small in comparison to large countries, the energy used by this digital currency is a significant source of carbon emissions. Bitcoin users also expend large amounts of energy and computing power to create the "blockchain" of bitcoin transactions. It is impossible to quantify the exact amount of energy used by the Bitcoin protocol. However, its estimated power usage is comparable to other industrialized financial systems. Bitcoin's energy consumption is not as high as some economists believe. However, the value of its cryptocurrency investment is a good indicator of its environmental impact. Many emerging economies rely on a system that uses excessive power but becomes more efficient over time. More than 1 million transactions are currently using Bitcoin per second. This traffic volume is causing the Bitcoin network to use half of the world's total power consumption. This is similar to the energy consumption of countries like Argentina. Although bitcoin has little importance in the world economy, the Bitcoin network's energy consumption raises questions about the environment.
The Difference Between PoS And PoW?
The basic difference between PoS and the proof of work network is how to distribute the hashpower. The proof of work network requires large amounts of computing power. In addition, PoW is more prone to centralization of mining. For example, China alone controls 80% of the world's Bitcoin hashing power. As a result, Chinese miners can join forces to launch an 80% attack. While both types of blockchains use cryptography for their security, Proof of Stake has several advantages. For one thing, it's much simpler to implement than PoW. In addition, Proof of Stake eliminates the energy costs associated with mining. This allows any network node to be a forger. Ethereum plans to migrate to Proof of Stake as its 2.0 version, which is currently in development. It is not clear if this conversion will occur soon, but we expect this to happen within a few years. Proof of Work (PoW) is the original blockchain consensus algorithm. It requires network users to prove a computational task. For example, solving a mathematical equation requires a computer known as a node. When the equation is solved, a new block is validated. Because this computational task requires time, the first miner to solve the puzzle wins. This helps provide security to blockchain transactions. It also makes the chain more complex than PoS, making it less susceptible to double-spending attacks. PoW is the most widely used type of blockchain as far as how a blockchain works. It was developed by the company “Peercoin.” It holds the same purpose as PoW, with the difference that the first block is hardcoded into the software. The difference between PoS and PoW is in the method of transaction validation.
Bitcoiners' Opinions About This
When asked whether they think it's necessary to change the Bitcoin protocol to reduce consumption, most users are ambivalent. For example, some Bitcoiners believe that the network should be completely decentralized to avoid government intervention. Others argue that the system needs state currency backing to reduce risk. In addition, others cite other concerns, such as corruption. Despite the mixed reactions, Bitcoin users seem to be fairly sure that Bitcoin is a trustworthy and decentralized network. While some argue that the monetization of natural gas with Bitcoin reduces emissions, some say it's just a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry. Indeed, Bitcoin miners' income is a mere drop in the ocean when you compare it to the overall demand for fossil fuels. Still, while this may be the case, the external demand for fossil fuels isn't going away any time soon, and the extraction of oil and gas will continue for many years to come. Bitcoin miners may even have the chance to bring back decommissioned fossil fuel power stations. In addition to that, the Bitcoin mining industry has reopened a former coal power station in New York as a bitcoin mine. The company Greenidge Generation Holdings has a Bitcoin mining operation there. Despite the widespread evidence of the risks and benefits of Bitcoin, many participants on r/bitcoin justify their continued use of the cryptocurrency by citing its "trustless" nature. Because there is no central authority, no third party can control the transactions. Furthermore, there is no possibility of fraud. Those in the community support this attitude. Indeed, previous work on the role of trust in the Bitcoin community has found a close link between this mindset and True Bitcoiner ideology.
Global Measures on Bitcoin Protocol
Sustainable consumption is about reducing the use of toxic materials, fossil fuels, and waste and reducing pollution. By 2050, we expect the global population to grow to 9.6 billion people, and we would need three planets to sustain our current lifestyles. The debates over sustainable consumption began in the 1990s, with pioneering thinkers such as Andre Gorz, Herman Daly, Serge Latouche, Tim Jackson, and Kate Raworth arguing for action. The debate over the changes to the Bitcoin protocol has raged over the past several years. The EU has recently encouraged the adoption of a "poS" system. Although Bitcoin's users cannot run full nodes, they must trust the large-scale providers of the network to use the network. Otherwise, Bitcoin would cease to be a decentralized system. The seeds of this disagreement were planted from the start of the Bitcoin protocol, and a major conflict erupted from 2015 to 2017. The shift in consumption pattern is dramatic and could save billions of dollars for businesses and city governments alike. For example, reducing red meat consumption could prevent 170,000 deaths a year in some high-income cities and save cities as much as $11 billion in costs. In addition, it could save cities billions of dollars by not having to build new buildings. Clearly, global measures to lower consumption are worth it. But how do we do it?