> Also with merge mining and proof of space we can be quite efficient in the 
> future.

Proof of memory (space) is just proof of work with extra steps. It does not 
reduce energy consumption.


Merge mining is non-dedicated cost, so also does not improve energy efficiency. 
The irreducible *cost* is what matters.



On Sep 17, 2018, at 06:18, Andrew <onelinepr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I see what you say, however, since the proposal as I have read it says "And 
>> this will keep happening as long as hashrate keeps rising," - what actually 
>> happens in the case hashrate stagnates or falls?
> In general, a target hashrate can be set by users (can be less or more
> than the peak hashrate). As long as hashrate is rising and still
> didn't reach the target, miners will incrementally get the reserve
> fees. Once the "contract" times out, the remaining part can be used as
> fees by the users who created the reserve fee "contract". So if
> hashrate remains the same or falls, then users get the reserve fees
> back.
> I agree that we can't stop people from being greedy. If they are not
> Bitcoin mining, they will try to put their energy to earn in some
> other way...The hashrate is related the demand for Bitcoin (price) and
> the amount of fees/subsidies the miners will get paid. For every level
> of mining rewards (based on demand) there exists a limit on the
> hashrate. Once hashrate gets large enough, no new miners (additional
> hashrate) will want to join since their share of the hashrate is too
> small to make a profit.
> Also with merge mining and proof of space we can be quite efficient in
> the future. But of course I sympathize with the "don't be greedy"
> philosophy, and it can be good to educate people to use less resources
> than they need, just I think it's a bit outside of the scope of what
> the Bitcoin software protocol does.
bitcoin-dev mailing list

Reply via email to