No. Ethereum and Bitcoin are not the modern equivalents of the classic Cola wars of the 1980s. They are fundamentally different digital assets. While Coke and Pepsi have their differences, they are fundamentally soft drinks. Ethereum and Bitcoin are built on different architectures, and now that the Ethereum merger has finally happened, they use fundamentally different mining strategies.
To understand why Ethereum is transitioning to Proof of Stake while Bitcoin remains on Proof of Work, it’s important to know that the two assets are fundamentally different. The currencies have very different philosophies, business strategies, and purposes, and we need to assess them according to their context and needs.
First, let’s look at Ethereum
Ethereum has developed to become a delegated technological infrastructure for creative assets like NFTs. This would enable venture capitalists and others to support financially, exchange, and bet on these within the structures of our current monetary & financial systems.
Ethereum does not plan to adjust the monetary or financial structures that dictate our current world, nor is there an organized effort to place ETH at the center of social, economic or climate justice initiatives and community-building efforts.
Ethereum seeks to provide a base layer for creativity and capital under the same centralized governance structures that are typical of banks and tech companies, such as Meta and Google.
You can choose for yourself if you want to use Ethereum and how you want to operate it. However, it is needless to consume more energy via PoW because Ethereum already has a set goal and objective.
Now compare Ethereum to Bitcoin
Bitcoin was created in 2008 as a way to respond directly to the global financial crisis that caused damage to many people. It seeks to change how monetary and financial systems work, and move human rights, economic inclusion, and modern energy production/consumption forward. Bitcoin does not have any one person or group of people who control it– meaning that anyone can use it without having permission from anyone else.
Proof of Work by Bitcoin remains an essential way to preserve decentralization and an inability for a small group of stakeholders to change the supply of the asset and other features arbitrarily.
Implications of Ethereum’s migration to Proof-of-Stake
Ethereum’s migration to Proof-of-Stake might not be a big deal when considering its objectives and use cases. One could argue that these actually require the move to PoS. The same cannot be said for Bitcoin, though.
Bitcoin is censorship-resistant and dependable, providing an easy-to-access monetary asset for anyone worldwide. Bitcoin’s use of Proof-of-Work is crucial to its success as an asset that is gradually changing our monetary and financial systems.
Global adoption and use cases for Ethereum and Bitcoin demonstrate their true impact. For example, people are not using Ethereum to escape political persecution, build sustainable local economies, and create new low-barrier payment and financial settlement tools—similar to Bitcoin’s Network.
Furthermore, Ethereum miners have not rallied to incentivize the building of renewable energy production or to capture waste energy, as is happening with Bitcoin mining.
So Ethereum and Bitcoin are fundamentally different assets.
Ethereum and Bitcoin are fundamentally different assets, with different adoption and use cases, requiring different consensus and mechanisms for their ongoing governance. Ethereum is moving to PoS, and while that’s good news for ETH, it’s not necessarily relevant to Bitcoin. They are not the Coke and Pepsi of the crypto era.