3 ms·
So basically, it turns into a ridiculously complicated bank. That requires 42tWh of power waste (and growing) to function. I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed. Le
by kyledrake 9y ago
So basically, it turns into a ridiculously complicated bank. That requires 42tWh of power waste (and growing) to function.
I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed. Let's build a solution that scales better on-chain and uses a more power efficient mining algorithm.
- wtfstatists 9y ago> uses a more power efficient mining algorithm Thats axiomatically impossible. Its the amount of energy required, not nhashes/etc, that disincentivize an attacker from rewriting history.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- DennisP 9y agoWell, it's the financial cost required, which in PoW is a combination of energy and capital cost.
- imtringued 9y agoI think a combination of both is required for optimal results. Lightning is good enough for micropayments. On chain transactions are good for large payments. The only problem with on-chain scaling is that keeping a payment history for the entire planet is not really feasable. You have to somehow prune old data from the blockchain.