|
|
|
|
|
by toenail
973 days ago
|
|
> My initial point was to inform the OP about peer-reviewed "Peer-reviewed" is meaningless if it's not scientific, fact-based. > articles on current waste See, you start with the assumption that it's wasted. You can only come to that conclusion if you assume that bitcoin serves little or no purpose. > Honing any process to use less energy while achieving similar or better results is not an unreasonable goal. Energy usage is what brought humanity from stone tools and caves to the moon, using energy is a good thing that advances civilization. Energy production can be problematic, which bitcoin doesn't do. Proof of work is one of the core innovations, there is no system that has better results. |
|
Both can be accounted for: would you not rather see a version where these issues are accounted for? PoS is a sure way forward, but there are still many legacy chains around that do not benefit from this [0].
[0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...