[Aqueous]

the energy usage of bitcoin and the altcoins is, in my opinion, one of the few things that could threaten its viability long term. people aren't going to be able to understand the reasoning that this is the cost of decentralization - it's going to look like a phenomenal waste of energy, even if low-powered ASICs are doing most of the work. not that the average consumer has a problem with that, but govts might.

i wonder if there is a solution to the byzantine general's problem with that is resistant to 50% malicious nodes but doesn't require so much energy overhead. even proof-of-stake coins still require energy wasting.

[eloisius]

> people aren't going to be able to understand the reasoning that this is the cost of decentralization

As compared to entire blocks of office high-rises in every major city required for our current financial system?

[Aqueous]

Well, commercial organizations that own office space are already forming and expanding around BitCoin - so the cost of keeping those businesses physically open would be in addition to the cost of keeping the BitCoin network up and running. It's not like we're getting rid of the need for buildings.

[zanny]

Or people carving up the crust of the Earth looking for a shiny rock in yesteryears.

Though it is worth mentioning there are cryptocurrencies looking to solve this problem, like peercoin's proof of stake.

[iwwr]

You also have to look at the cost of the conventional banking system, fees and periodic capital destruction by inflation, bailouts and malinvestment.