3 ms·

Your facts are true, but I disagree with your conclusion. The resource consumption is actually bounded by the economic value of the network, or the value of att

Your facts are true, but I disagree with your conclusion. The resource consumption is actually bounded by the economic value of the network, or the value of attacking the network. If the network generates $100 of value (in terms of market cap etc) for each $1 spent to operate it, then the resource consumption if the network is essentially bounded to 1/100 of global GDP. This is also assuming network operators capture 100% of the value of the network, which is too high by at least an order of magnitude for most networks. Networks with bigger ratios truly are more efficient, even in absurd hypotheticals in which all economic activity is devoted to operating the network. All I'm assuming here is that actors don't put in more than they get out of it.

xg15 5y ago
> If the network generates $100 of value (in terms of market cap etc) for each $1 spent to operate it, then the resource consumption if the network is essentially bounded to 1/100 of global GDP. I agree with this point - but over the last few years, we have seen how wildly the perceived value of cryptocurrencies can fluctuate. There are a lot of actors who are strongly interested in driving up the value - either through legitimate means, but just as often through fraud, e.g. manipulated exchanges, wash trading, etc. So the market cap can easily reach fantasy numbers which aren't really justified by economic utility - but because this fantasy valuation represents real money for miners, energy consumption will follow it.
Beldin 5y ago
That analysis works only if everyone values the network in exactly the same fashion with exactly the same results. Controlling or even having Crypto currencies may be valuable beyond/outside their market cap to some (eg cybercriminals, intelligence agencies).
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  If a hypothetical criminal valued breaking bitcoin at a significantly higher amount than the profit derived from mining, then the criminal would just attack the network and win. Remember that I'm not describing the security of a PoW network, I'm describing energy consumption and only assuming that individual miners will not mine unprofitably.

xg15 5y ago

> If the network generates $100 of value (in terms of market cap etc) for each $1 spent to operate it, then the resource consumption if the network is essentially bounded to 1/100 of global GDP. I agree with this point - but over the last few years, we have seen how wildly the perceived value of cryptocurrencies can fluctuate. There are a lot of actors who are strongly interested in driving up the value - either through legitimate means, but just as often through fraud, e.g. manipulated exchanges, wash trading, etc. So the market cap can easily reach fantasy numbers which aren't really justified by economic utility - but because this fantasy valuation represents real money for miners, energy consumption will follow it.

Beldin 5y ago

That analysis works only if everyone values the network in exactly the same fashion with exactly the same results. Controlling or even having Crypto currencies may be valuable beyond/outside their market cap to some (eg cybercriminals, intelligence agencies).

mgraczyk 5y ago
If a hypothetical criminal valued breaking bitcoin at a significantly higher amount than the profit derived from mining, then the criminal would just attack the network and win. Remember that I'm not describing the security of a PoW network, I'm describing energy consumption and only assuming that individual miners will not mine unprofitably.