Author

Topic: . (Read 120 times)

legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 4418
Crypto Swap Exchange
.
June 06, 2021, 05:51:43 PM
#4
Well, What I meant is that even if mining is the only solution, why is it all that big? Is there really no easier way than that programmatically?
If you want something that isn't as complex, you can implement a database systems which doesn't require much computational power at all, ie. Visa. That hardly helps with decentralization or security at all.

Mining in the context of PoW offers a way for the network to achieve consensus and at the same time having huge amount of costs being incurred. In Bitcoin and other similar cryptos, mining is a necessity in the system. I find the issue pretty much discussed to death. There are obviously various solutions that probably require less resource consumption... Is Bitcoin going to switch to that? Probably not. That is the end of discussion.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 4418
Crypto Swap Exchange
June 06, 2021, 05:15:55 PM
#3
How important is mining to be one of the downsides of Bitcoin (the largest currency) so far? Why was not resorting to an easier solution, as in these currencies today?

Why with so many options (replace by fee and the like), would it have been so much easier to just send and receive bitcoin and at the same time be decentralized and no mining?
Same argument can be made against most activities that produces huge amounts of emissions on a daily basis yet providing less utility than Bitcoin.

Sure, PoW does result in quite a lot of environmental impact. That is a feature, where it is necessary to incur large costs to provide security for the network. There has been plenty of arguments made against PoW but it doesn't really make sense to change. Bitcoin doesn't produce any emission, mining does. If anything, the responsibility of this lies on the government to reduce the electrical consumption through regulatory measures. Don't really understand why RBF is in this conversation.

There are plenty of other ways to try to ensure consensus but none of them incurs as much costs as Bitcoin which is what we're looking for. Even if there is a better method, changing the algorithm involves getting the approval of the various stakeholders which is practically impossible.
legendary
Activity: 2352
Merit: 6089
bitcoindata.science
June 06, 2021, 05:05:57 PM
#2

Here I start, with the mining process and its excessive use of electricity, there are coins like NANO that have zero transaction fees, and can not be mined and no harming the environment.

How important is mining to be one of the downsides of Bitcoin (the largest currency) so far? Why was not resorting to an easier solution, as in these currencies today?

The example you gave, Nano , is a centralized cruptocurrency.  What makes bitcoin special and value is its decentralized nature.

There is no central authority confirming transactions or deciding what the network will do.

Mining is what makes bitcoin decentralized.  Anyone can just buy some hardware and start mining. The electricity spent in mining isn't wasted , it is used to secure the network.

If you just want fast transactions, you can just go on Visa. Bitcoin has a different goal, which is to let people control their money, without any CEO or president or central bank behind it. The code is the law.

PoS coin are still very incipient,  and even ethereum is struggling to try to make it work. Bjtcoin is more conservative, and there is no room for errors.


Quote
Why with so many options (replace by fee and the like), would it have been so much easier to just send and receive bitcoin and at the same time be decentralized and no mining?

There is no other coin as decentralized as bitcoin.

Many of those coins just change Block size or block time. They are just changing parameters, not creating anything really new.
jr. member
Activity: 49
Merit: 25
June 06, 2021, 04:52:40 PM
#1
.
Jump to: