1/ Once we realize that PoW hashing ops are close to 100% efficiency *for the purpose of protecting the ledger from being rewritten*. That is, one hash in (to mine), one hash out (to revert). A follow-up question might be:https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/952289179387310080 …
-
-
10/ First problem: mining hardware constantly improves. So you’d have to constantly update the cap to match with improved hardware. Who would decide on this cap & when to update it?
Show this thread -
11/ Second problem: an artificial limit on resource burnt means that miners will earn a surplus on their investment, beyond what they already earn, since price & transaction fees are still determined by the market.
Show this thread -
12/ This extra miner surplus might have an impact on centralization since they could potentially use this surplus to build a higher barrier-to-entry to mining.
Show this thread -
13/ TL;DR: hashing ops are close to 100% efficiency for their purpose. It’s impossible to reduce energy cost without reducing security. Currently market determines how much security the ledger needs. Not sure if there’s a non-market-based solution that can do "better."
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
