Is it even feasible for Bitcoin to move away from Proof of Work in the future?

>extremley efficient
theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/27/bitcoin-mining-consumes-electricity-ireland

Answer the question then.

>At those levels of electricity consumption, each individual bitcoin transaction uses almost 300KWh of electricity – enough to boil around 36,000 kettles full of water.

And? If it gets unfeasible, some miners will stop mining and the difficulty for the rest goes down. I don't see a problem here.

Bitcoin consumes less energy than christmas lights in burgistan lmao. Have you ever heard anyone say christmas lights are unsustainable?
blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-electricity-consumption/

>300KWh per transaction
>extremely efficient

>he doesnt realize lightning network is a PoS system put ontop of bitcoins PoW system
grats you get both shitty parts

their investment in hardware would be wasted and they surely sell a lot to cover costs

If Core was reasonable, and if miners were reasonable(neither is true today), they could come to an agreement to ease into PoS so that miners could cut their costs in anticipation of it and Bitcoin comes out stable with no transaction or forking issues-everyone wins
But the miners today seem delusional enough to think this can go on forever, and too many users are happy to suck their dicks in Satoshi's name, so eventually I expect Core to force the issue without reaching out at all, causing another failed hard fork and Bitcoin value to tumble hard.

>300KWh per transaction
At the moment the vast majority of mining profit comes from creating new btc, not fees. A better comparison would be with the energy consumption of gold mining or something.
Anyway, I still don't see how it's unsustainable, even if it's wasteful from an idealistic point of view.

>Bitcoin consumes more electric in a year than Ireland
>Bitcoin consumes less electric than christmas lights in burgerstan
So Ireland consumes less electric than christmas lights in burgerstan?

ireland is fucking tiny

>idealistic point of view
It's not idealistic to think they shouldn't be wasting processing power on solving pointless equations that don't relate to the security or speed of the blockchain in any way. All it did was put a steep economic barrier on who can mine and enrich certain industries.

fucking christmas lights

lets say Bitcoin wants to compete with Visa, which does 150,000,000 transactions per day.

It would take HALF THE ENERGY GENERATED BY THE US to do as many transactions as Visa.

>steep economic barrier
Dude I'm in fucking college and I ordered 4 S9's. If you are a working age adult there is no reason why you don't have $6000 laying around. Unless you are a dope smoking nigger

Until you invent a better way to implement trustless decentralized money this is the best we have. The fact that it costs energy (= money) is precisely the point, as such it is not useless at all since it secures the network.

What about Proof of Space and Time? Seems viable

proof of (hard drive) space is being worked on I think, but it's equally pointless since it will just lead to people producing a fuckton of harddrives in the end

I mean people already produce ASIC miners which serve no purpose other than mining. At least HDDs have purpose outside of mining (and use less power)

>Until you invent a better way
Proof of Stake dumbass

Harddrive mining like Burst is an arms race for ever increasing capacity and also using GPU's to assist finding blocks on the drives faster.
But it's still is more energy efficient than processors.

What's burst's method of HDD mining? Is it exactly proof of space?

I don't know. Burst writes nonces to drives and then when a round starts the nonces are searched for matching results for that block.