3 ms·
No, you nailed it, 0 or more transactions. Power is not directly tied to transactions as a result. Edit: in case you’re still struggling: mining yields the bl
by DJBunnies 6y ago
No, you nailed it, 0 or more transactions. Power is not directly tied to transactions as a result.
Edit: in case you’re still struggling: mining yields the block subsidy reward. That is its primary function.
- arcticbull 6y agoSee it’s solely for transactions. Without transactions or mutability mining wouldn’t be required. This division is fair game. The block reward subsidy is only required to reward the processing of blocks which wouldn’t need to happen if transactions weren’t a feature. The method of facilitating transactions consumes all the power, so you can divide the average number of transactions per block to obtain the power expended per average transaction. Trust me I’m not struggling here, except with pushing back on the koolaid consumption. Folks who pursue extensive mental gymnastics to justify their having obtained wealth through environmental destruction: it’s like if everyone holding Bitcoin woke up one day to realize they’d killed a gorilla in the process. They’d try really hard to convince themselves they didn’t or that it wasn’t their fault. Even to pretend it didn’t happen because the gorillas were simply transmuted to a better life in the sky.
- DJBunnies 6y agoI disagree with your points, you can’t really generalize it all together and say “see look it’s the same!” when it is so clearly not. Good day.