3 ms·

... every piece of that sentence is straightforwardly incorrect.

by Groxx 5y ago

jazzyjackson 5y ago
Do you want to explain how? AFAIK The number of transactions per block and the rate at which blocks are confirmed has nothing to do with how many people are burning through hashes. And the price of a token is a kind of bounty for mining a block: the higher the price, the more money can be spent trying to win the bounty while still being profitable. You wouldn't see data centers full of ASICs if the reward was only a few hundred bucks. So how straight forward is it?
- Groxx 5y ago
  Their: >the transaction volume it can support will never change is plainly ridiculous (as proof: transaction volume has changed, and multiple changes have been successfully made that increase the peak volume), and is also covered by your: >AFAIK The number of transactions per block and the rate at which blocks are confirmed has nothing to do with how many people are burning through hashes. as for: >the energy consumption rises as a function of the price, with no upper bound. though there's obviously some relation to price and electricity use (i.e. hashing power, ignoring tech improvements), that direct relation really only makes sense with the per-block rewards... which keep halving, and that does not immediately lead to 1/2 hashing power. the market has repeatedly demonstrated that price and value-per-block do not directly relate to hashing/electricity. on top of that, transaction fees are taking a larger and larger proportion of it, and that's related pretty much solely to transaction volume (which does not noticeably affect electricity, as you pointed out), not value per coin or electricity. as far as "no upper bound"... only if you ignore market effects, like if electricity became free globally. since it's market-driven though, as beyond a certain point it's not profitable, you can't ignore that. and again, hashing power has dropped many times in the past, clearly demonstrating effective upper bounds at any given time.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ggrrhh_ta 5y ago
Can you explain in which ways is it incorrect? I am puzzled. I guess that what was is incorrect is using the word "crypto" instead of "POW blockchain-based"?

... every piece of that sentence is straightforwardly incorrect.

by Groxx 5y ago

... every piece of that sentence is straightforwardly incorrect.

Do you want to explain how? AFAIK The number of transactions per block and the rate at which blocks are confirmed has nothing to do with how many people are burning through hashes. And the price of a token is a kind of bounty for mining a block: the higher the price, the more money can be spent trying to win the bounty while still being profitable. You wouldn't see data centers full of ASICs if the reward was only a few hundred bucks. So how straight forward is it?

Groxx 5y ago
Their: >the transaction volume it can support will never change is plainly ridiculous (as proof: transaction volume has changed, and multiple changes have been successfully made that increase the peak volume), and is also covered by your: >AFAIK The number of transactions per block and the rate at which blocks are confirmed has nothing to do with how many people are burning through hashes. as for: >the energy consumption rises as a function of the price, with no upper bound. though there's obviously some relation to price and electricity use (i.e. hashing power, ignoring tech improvements), that direct relation really only makes sense with the per-block rewards... which keep halving, and that does not immediately lead to 1/2 hashing power. the market has repeatedly demonstrated that price and value-per-block do not directly relate to hashing/electricity. on top of that, transaction fees are taking a larger and larger proportion of it, and that's related pretty much solely to transaction volume (which does not noticeably affect electricity, as you pointed out), not value per coin or electricity. as far as "no upper bound"... only if you ignore market effects, like if electricity became free globally. since it's market-driven though, as beyond a certain point it's not profitable, you can't ignore that. and again, hashing power has dropped many times in the past, clearly demonstrating effective upper bounds at any given time.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ggrrhh_ta 5y ago

Can you explain in which ways is it incorrect? I am puzzled. I guess that what was is incorrect is using the word "crypto" instead of "POW blockchain-based"?