Any views expressed below are the personal opinion of the author and should not serve as a basis for making investment decisions, nor be construed as a recommendation or advice on participation in investment transactions.

Several months have passed since Ripple and Greenpeace, along with other environmental organizations, have shown that they absolutely do not understand the peculiarities of bitcoin.

In March, they announced the launch of the “Change the Code, Not the Climate” campaign. The goal is to put pressure on big bitcoiners to support the transition from an energy-intensive but proven Proof-of-Work algorithm to an experimental proof-of-stake (Proof-of-Stake).

In an attempt to justify its existence, the campaign relies heavily on the ongoing transition of the Ethereum network to PoS. As the day approaches when miners will abandon ETH, the anti-PoW mob is building up pressure on Bitcoin.
PoS or Pow for Bitcoin network
Proof-of-Stake VS Proof-of-Work in the Bitcoin Network

In short, the rationale is: “If Ethereum can make the transition, then so can Bitcoin.” However, this statement is completely missing the point. Supporters of BTC, most of all, value the predictability of their digital currency and are committed to sound monetary principles. These foundations are challenged when fundamental changes are made to the code.

There has been a lot written lately on the topic of PoW and PoS, as well as about possible trade-offs. Some claim that Proof-of-Work is a guarantee of security, while others claim that Proof-of-Stake provides the same, but at a much lower energy cost.

The debate is in full swing, and I’m not going to paraphrase either side’s arguments here. Instead, I want to focus on the underlying theme. To answer the question: “why is PoS not suitable for bitcoin and its value proposition as the most reliable money?” in terms of lack of historical precedent.
How the predictability of bitcoin breeds trust

Money is, first of all, trust. If we discard the widely held belief that a pile of gold, a $20 bill, or even a bar of soap can be traded for someone else’s time, product, or idea, then we are simply faced with objects with a certain “set of molecules.” It is people who give value to this or that means of payment, but without trust, monetary relationships quickly fall apart.
Bitcoin inspires confidence

Ask yourself: would gold be valued as one of the main financial instruments, overcoming space and cultural differences for 5 thousand years, if its molecular structure changed? The answer is obvious, isn’t it? Gold remains unchanged and consistently reliable. At the same time, in countries with unpredictable monetary policy and economic problems, confidence in national currencies is being destroyed. Unlike gold.

Trust doesn’t happen overnight. Bitcoin has been around for 14 years and has an uptime of over 99%. But even now he does not enjoy universal confidence. In the process of becoming a cryptocurrency, many changes were made to the protocol. However, key features, including limited resources protected by the world’s most powerful computing network, remain unchanged.

Change, especially without historical precedent, often raises doubts about the future. Let’s say a Fortune 500 company abruptly fired a successful CEO. An unknown person was put in his place and the reins of government were handed over. It doesn’t take a genius to predict the impact of such actions on stock prices.

Now imagine that the entire value proposition, or, relatively speaking, the price of a stock, is based on the predictability of an asset. This is exactly what happens with BTC.
Super safe money is a farce

Among the ardent fans of Ethereum, there is a popular meme “number go up”. It symbolizes the belief that anything that increases numbers (i.e. increases value) makes ETH a more “hard” form of asset than BTC. In other words, if bitcoin is safe money, then ether is an ultra-reliable currency.

It’s easy to see why this meme is so popular. If BTC is touted as a stable currency, then our Ethereum “ultrasound money” is surely better. It doesn’t really make any sense.

Bitcoin is largely considered reliable due to its limited supply. At the same time, a strict limit of 21 million coins means nothing if those who use it are not sure that everything will remain so.

If BTC abandons a tried-and-tested consensus mechanism in favor of an algorithm that has not passed 14 years of testing, then why should a user assume that their price proposal will not be the next target of changes? Bitcoin’s resistance to such interventions is integral to its positioning as safe money.
Proof-of-Stake and Ethereum

Ethereum, on the other hand, cannot be considered “sound money”. Its total

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

By Editor

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.