4 ms·

So instead of just using energy we'll be wasting physical resources on making hard drives? Doesn't sound eco-friendly to me. It does sound like a good way to

So instead of just using energy we'll be wasting physical resources on making hard drives? Doesn't sound eco-friendly to me. It does sound like a good way to drive up costs for the NSA to store everyone's data. That's a really clever way to fight mass surveillance.

petre 9y ago
The NSA gets their money from the taxpayer so you're only looking at more taxes to sustain they're storage costs. We'll also waste money to power empty hard drives.
infogulch 9y ago
One might make a general claim that as any coin stabilizes, the money spent on generating it will always approach the amount of money received. So for bitcoin, if miners get X on average to mine it, they will spend X-ε in electricity (in bitcoins case), where ε is a tiny profit margin (or perhaps paying back investment). This will remain true for any other coin and its proof scheme. The amount spent on generating it will asymptotically approach the amount received. The difference is that it might be possible for the byproducts to be useful.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- neilwilson 9y ago
  It's rather more interesting than that. The amount of resources thrown at mining causes the price to be what it is in USD terms. The electricity costs of mining are about 20% of the price of Bitcoin - now as it was in 2011. https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/the-cost-of-bitcoin-47d2fe088e2 https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/the-cost-of-bitcoin-... The value of the token is what it costs to get it. You won't let it go for any less than that.