> It is paving the way, but the fundamentals of how it works are unsustainable. The fundamentals of how it works can be changed. It is true that entrenched act

> It is paving the way, but the fundamentals of how it works are unsustainable. The fundamentals of how it works can be changed. It is true that entrenched actors may dig in their heels and prevent it from changing, and so some other more fast moving cryptocurrency may take over. An alternative is a hard fork. I think it's possible that a hard fork that has figured out the "right way" will do better than a fresh cryptocurrency doing the right thing but from scratch, because by hard forking you don't have to convince everyone to bootstrap. I accept it may equally go the other way; we'll have to wait and see. > Transactions cost too much, take too long, and require too much proof of work. Let's see what the lightning network brings. As for requiring too much proof of work, I think that's a fallacy. You're looking at it backwards. "Much" proof of work isn't required; that miners compete by providing it is a consequence of the current value of the block reward and transaction fees. Relatively little hash power is actually required to maintain the network. The reason the current hash rate is so high is because hash rate follows price rather than the other way round. The high value of the mining rewards has attracted many miners. In the future, when the block reward becomes zero and the lightning network has relieved congestion on the main blockchain, traders (actually probably just parties seeking clearing) won't have to bid against each other so hard in fees to get their transactions confirmed. Then transaction fees will drop, so the reward for finding the next block will also drop, unprofitable miners will leave, and so will the hash rate. So: 1) transactions cost too much and take too long is currently true but if the lightning network effort succeeds then this will no longer be a problem; and 2) too much proof of work is not actually "required".