3 ms·
Sure, any energy expenditure over and above what would be necessary to run a centralized database can be considered inefficient, and therefore "ecologically unf
by droffel 11y ago
Sure, any energy expenditure over and above what would be necessary to run a centralized database can be considered inefficient, and therefore "ecologically unfriendly". However, the hashrate isn't burning energy for no utility: the security of the network is directly proportional to the energy expended in hashing.
Considering that the energy is being expended for a purpose (security against malicious actors), and that it is economically infeasible to expend more energy than the marginal fee revenue in a given moment (once we transition from the current block subsidies to a pure fee market), I question whether calling mining "economically unfriendly" is fair. The energy usage will scale linearly (not exponentially) with usage, which seems perfectly alright to me.
- nunyabuizness 11y agoI completely agree with everything you said; however to clarify what I meant originally, I say "ecologically unfriendly" because of all the ways to do distributed consensus, proof-of-work is the least efficient mechanism when compared to the various proof-of-stake algorithms and Ripple/Stellar's cascading consensus model. They all have their own individual tradeoffs (some technical, some political), but when talking about energy consumption, there's no argument that PoW is the most costly.