Re: Can/should Bitcoin software be reconfigured to limit the # of miners?
⭐ Merited by mocacinno (1)
1. Can the protocol be changed?
Of course, and it has, many times since the Bitcoin code was first released in 2009. However, any change to the consensus rules requires that an OVERWHELMING majority (more than 90%) of ALL users (miners, pools, nodes, merchants, consumers, HODLers, exchanges, etc.) agree to the change. Otherwise, all that happens is that the blockchain splits into two forks, one with the original rules still followed by those that want it the old way, and an altcoin with the new rules. This is how things such as Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin SV came about.
What if changing the protocol solves the above 3 problems which are limiting bitcoin as a currency for regular transactions?
Well, solving problems is great, provided:
1. It actually changes what it intends to change.
2. It doesn't introduce new worse problems.
3. The things you think are problems are actually a problem
4. You can get EVERYONE to agree that the presented solution is the best solution.
At the moment, your suggestions accomplish NONE of those things.
1. Your suggestions would have no effect on average time of confirmation, and would not put a stop to excessive electricity use.
2. Your suggestions would introduce new worse problems.
3. The things you are complaining about are either already addressed via some other method (Lightning) or are not a real problem (Electricity).
4. As you can see from this discussion alone, you do not have overwhelming support for your idea.
If those that know what they are talking about are telling you that you don't understand and that your solution is not a solution, you have 3 choices.
1. Ignore them and assume that you know more about Bitcoin than people that have been discussing it here on bitcointalk for nearly a decade.
2. Assume that they've misunderstood what you are suggesting and explain it more carefully with more detail about exactly which protocol rules or code sections would be affected and how, so as to clear up the confusion.
3. Accept that you may be missing some knowledge, and that your suggestion fails to take into consideration some details that you have misunderstood.
At the moment, it seems you've chosen option 1. How's that working out for you? You may want to think about one of the other options.
2. If you have a limited number of networks say 10,000 to process a transaction
What do you mean by "networks"? This statement doesn't make any sense when I use any definition I'm familiar with.
this should reduce transaction time?
No. It seems you don't understand how transaction confirmations happen. You've made some assumptions, and those assumptions appears to be wrong.
And/or how many miners does it usually take to process a transaction?
Assuming you are talking about confirming, it only takes one. They all try, but only one ever succeeds.
Not every miner right? 
Like I said, they all try, but only one ever succeeds.