Comment on “Proof-of-work” proves not to work for spam prevention (2004) [pdf]parentComments−mgraczyk4yThey do use energy, but it's very small compared to other economic activity.For example, suppose Bitcoin consumed as much energy as a few households. Would that be acceptable?Alternatives aren't quite that efficient, but my point is that the relative energy consumption matters a lot.−lisper4ysuppose Bitcoin consumed as much energy as a few householdsThat's not possible. The marginal cost of mining has to equal the value of the coins mined.−mgraczyk4yThe cost can come from things that do not consume energy, for example fabricating a complex chip that includes rare materials.−lisper4yAnd where do you think those rare materials come from?−slavik814ySo, proof-of-gold?−xg154yFor example, suppose Bitcoin consumed as much energy as a few households. Would that be acceptable?But in this scenario, Bitcoin would consume rising amounts of some other resource, say SSDs or network capacity.
Comments
They do use energy, but it's very small compared to other economic activity.
For example, suppose Bitcoin consumed as much energy as a few households. Would that be acceptable?
Alternatives aren't quite that efficient, but my point is that the relative energy consumption matters a lot.
That's not possible. The marginal cost of mining has to equal the value of the coins mined.
The cost can come from things that do not consume energy, for example fabricating a complex chip that includes rare materials.
And where do you think those rare materials come from?
So, proof-of-gold?
But in this scenario, Bitcoin would consume rising amounts of some other resource, say SSDs or network capacity.