3 ms·

> because it's not transactions that cost, it's security of those transactions. Logically wrong, but let's follow the reasoning. Let's assume Bitcoin transact

by axlee 5y ago

> because it's not transactions that cost, it's security of those transactions. Logically wrong, but let's follow the reasoning. Let's assume Bitcoin transactions were indeed not secure (and thus, according to you, costing little energy). - Would these unsafe-but-cheap transactions still be considered "Bitcoin transactions" in the way that we know them? - Would these unsafe-but-cheap transactions fulfill the requirements that Bitcoin has in place for itself? - Would an unsafe-but-cheap Bitcoin still be a great option in your eyes to replace the worldwide financial system? If you agree with all these statements and their corollaries, I can follow you in saying "Bitcoin transactions do not cost energy". You are creating a false dichotomy: security is an integral component of bitcoin transactions, and if security costs, transactions cost as well. You cannot just summon it away and pretend it is unrelated to the nature of Bitcoin transactions itself, when in fact it is one of its largest selling points.

keymone 5y ago
> You are creating a false dichotomy: security is an integral component of bitcoin transactions, and if security costs, transactions cost as well that would be true if only on-chain settlements would count as transactions in BTC ecosystem. there are more ways to exchange BTC with security landing anywhere between very low and on-chain settlement. thing is, that it's not even transactions that have security, it's blocks. energy is spent to make sure that it's expensive to override/rollback blocks. and it's true that blocks exist to assert ordering of on-chain settlements, but it's not true to claim that there is 1-1 correspondence between on-chain settlements and transactions. each on-chain settlement can embed trillions of bitcoin transactions (in colloquial sense, exchanges of an asset). what does that do to your "energy per tx" metric?

by axlee 5y ago

keymone 5y ago

> You are creating a false dichotomy: security is an integral component of bitcoin transactions, and if security costs, transactions cost as well that would be true if only on-chain settlements would count as transactions in BTC ecosystem. there are more ways to exchange BTC with security landing anywhere between very low and on-chain settlement. thing is, that it's not even transactions that have security, it's blocks. energy is spent to make sure that it's expensive to override/rollback blocks. and it's true that blocks exist to assert ordering of on-chain settlements, but it's not true to claim that there is 1-1 correspondence between on-chain settlements and transactions. each on-chain settlement can embed trillions of bitcoin transactions (in colloquial sense, exchanges of an asset). what does that do to your "energy per tx" metric?