Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
This is followed by a guest contribution and an opinion from Carter Feldman, CEO and founder of the dogs Protocol.
When Bitcoin appeared in 2009, introduced an elegant consensual mechanism called Evidence (Pow). This system required miners to solve complex mathematical puzzles and consume significant electricity to secure the network. For years this approach has defined blockchain.
Then the critics came. Pow has been marked as unsustainable, unfit and ultimately inappropriate for mainstream adoption. Even before the start of Ethereum in 2015, Vitalik Buterin defended the shift Evidence of a betting of a bet (POS). This step promised to reduce energy consumption while maintaining security via validator deposits rather than computing force. The industry, confronted with apparent Powa restrictions, has largely accepted this vision. It looked like a natural development of blockchain.
Big panic
Let us be honest about one thing that happened: the crypto space has experienced collective moral panic about energy consumption. Environmental activists, politicians and even industry initiations armed Pow’s energy requirements against technology itself.
Some of these concerns were valid at the time. Industry of the blockchain, which eager after the adoption of the mainstream and security at the regulatory will, accepted POS as a solution to his pictorial problem. Ethereum’s shift to POS was celebrated as a crypto “growing” and became responsible for the environment.
Evidence of a betting of a bet He promised significant advantages: energy efficiency and higher (but not much) transaction permeability.
Pow Systems security is tied to something external and measurable – computing energy and electricity. This creates a tangible economic barrier against attacks. In addition, the power cam against censorship is because anyone can benefit from a bitcoin block. However, POS provides networks through self -reference mechanisms. The system is ensured by the tokens themselves produced. In a simple analysis, this may seem fine, but naturally develops into increasingly complex incentives, such as liquid betting/re -establishment that introduce exponentially growing complexity and potential for abuse. In short, this circle is the equivalent to reducing the gold standard currency – it works until it is.
There is an unpleasant truth that few have the courage to say openly: evidence of the share created a new oligarchy in the space itself, which was supposed to democratize and decentralize finances. In the following, the most affects the most tokens. Some believed that it would motivate the rich and powerful to look for everyone. As most of us are aware of, the truth is that the shift to POS instead led to the rich use of their strength to the prey of end users through techniques such as leading run and other forms of MeV.
Over time, natural economic forces are pushing towards the concentration of power. The largest parties accumulate more rewards and further consolidate their inspection – a control that inevitably leads to the use of end users.
Everyone in the field knows that these problems exist. Yet we publicly maintain the facade that everything works as intended. This cognitive dissonance cannot continue if we are seriously building truly decentralized systems.
Trilem break
For years, we have accepted “Blockchain Trilemma” as an unchanging truth. This concept has that blockchain systems must sacrifice one of the three properties: decentralization, safety or scalability. Bitcoins preferred the safety and decentralization at the expense of permeability. The Ethereum shift to POS focused on the processing of “several thousand transactions per second” to compete with old payment systems, but that meant threatening other dimensions.
The compromise seemed inevitable. While Pos eliminated the concentration around mining hardware, it introduced concentration around economic power. Those who have more tokens will gain more influence – a different form of centralization, but still centralization.
But what if Trilemma is no longer absolute?
Recent progress in zero knowledge (ZKPS) has opened a whole new way-which allows horizontal scalability without significant threat to security or decentralization. These powerful cryptographic innovations allow transactions or truly calculations to prove correct without requiring each node in the network redundant. In fact, users can prove the validity of their own transactions on local devices on their own devices and present only a small, easily verifiable mathematical evidence to the network.
What’s more, the nodes in the network could work together to aggregate all the evidence of transactions into a single block evidence that anyone could verify in real time for smart hours. With this type of network, there is no longer need to verify every transaction. “Don’t believe. Verify
This approach transforms the basic economy of blockchains. When users show their own transactions, the network no longer has to charge high fees for rare block space. The processing of a million transactions will not significantly increase the block time when using recursive evidence aggregation.
Evidence of work work
In addition to energy debates, Pow brings the characteristics of POS cannot coincide.
Pow allows real bootstrapping. Bitcoin began with zero value, yet the miners committed real sources that created a real digital shortage. POS networks face an impossible problem with chicken and egg: before there is security, they need valuable chips.
Only Pow provides objective finality through irreversible work. The history of Bitcoins is ensured by measurable effort, not voices. Each block represents an energy that cannot be recovered.
Perhaps the most critical for real decentralization, the dog’s approach prevents 51% of the attacks mathematically impossible. Using the evidence of zero knowledge to verify transactions, the integrity of the entire chain guaranteed from Genesis. Although the attackers somehow gained control of all mining force, they could not rewrite history or create invalid blocks. This basic innovation maintains the external safety model and at the same time eliminates its greatest vulnerability, which further strengthens the case to return to our roots.
Reclamation of what we lost
He made perfect sense in 2015, but in 2025, when there are better alternatives, POS holds in 2025, does not make sense.
Miners who provide Pow networks are not only consumers of energy; They are essential guards against centralization. Their operations, scattered all over the world and bound by physics rather than the economy of tokens, create a real division of power.
The reasons that brought us to POS will no longer apply. With the evidence of zero knowledge that allows horizontal scalability, the work of work 2.0 now overcomes in relation to critical dimensions: energy efficiency is dramatically improving through the verification of the local transaction, the limitations are solved through evidence aggregation and real decentralization is preserved rather than victim.
We took a detour with proof of the share that created a new oligarchy in the area itself, which was supposed to democratize the funds. The good news is that we now have a course management technology. Modern blockchains Pow gives the power needed to adopt the mainstream while maintaining the basic values on which it matters. The motivation for the transition to POS is outdated. It’s time to recognize it.
