Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chriswilmer 3224 days ago
This is a stupid comparison. The number of transactions can be increased by a factor of a 1000 easily while holding the amount of energy expended constant.
1 comments
rspeer 3224 days ago
If it's so easy, please describe how.
link
Shorel 3224 days ago
The how is easy to explain with just the name of an implementation/fork: Bitcoin Cash.

The reason it has not happened for original Bitcoin is internal politics. If the number of transactions are limited then they are more profitable.

link
rspeer 3224 days ago
I do not believe that Bitcoin Cash is 1000x more efficient than Bitcoin. It is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence.
link
Shorel 3223 days ago
It is not, each block in Bitcoin Cash can only hold 8x more transactions.

Also, and more important: it is not necessary to for it to be 1000x more efficient, because no cryptocurrency currently has such a big amount of transactions per hour. It would be more wasteful to support 1GB blocks when they would go empty.

But, and this is actually my claim, if volume transaction increases enough to saturate a Bitcoin Cash block, then they will increase block size, as many times as it is needed, as that is the proposed Bitcoin Cash strategy. In stark contrast with the Bitcoin 1MB blocks forever strategy.

(I am assuming you don't think efficiency is measured in watts per transaction, because if you do, /facepalm)

link