Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by viraptor 3150 days ago
> The cost is reasonable in SSL case but unreasonable in Bitcoin case based on what criteria exactly

Next to nonexistent cost per connection in standard case of SSL. We can saturate gigabit links using modern hardware with AES-NI. Outside of special deployment cases, the cost is a rounding error. We can't provide this capability in a cheaper way at the moment (or we would do that)

On the other hand, we've got Bitcoin which chugs energy/money by design, while other solutions like proof of stake / space / ... exist and are much more energy efficient. People concisely decide to burn money to keep this system running - that's why it's unreasonable.

1 comments

> while other solutions like proof of stake / space / ... exist and are much more energy efficient.

They are only proposed solutions, not implemented in any existing systems so it's not fair to compare them. Proof of stake for example has numerous drawbacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake#Criticism

Filecoin did some good improvements in cpu/energy usage and PoSpace