> But you haven't given a solution to the problem that costs less, only argued that in practice the problem has assumptions that are in practice not necessary.

> But you haven't given a solution to the problem that costs less, only argued that in practice the problem has assumptions that are in practice not necessary. Aiming for solutions to problems that do not exist is a thing among blockchain aficionados, but I'm not one. Yet, remark that I also addressed the concern that if you do not interact with anyone else than the source of your blockchain copy, PoW makes it largely unlikely, but not impossible, that they would have tempered with the copy they provided you. So even in this scenario you partly rely on broader interactions. > I also don't understand the hangup over PoW and immutability. This whole discussion was started by my answer to your claim that “It [PoW] is not a waste, but a sacrifice made to make the blockchain strongly immutable.”. I don't think it is worth discussing this further.