Energy arbitrage,,, interesting. There are a lot of countries that produce oil who have a problem of excess gas (they do not use up more than they produce,,, and they are not able to sell the extra gas, and cannot store too much as gas is a lot and does not cover storage cost) so they burn it away instead.
Maybe great to use it to power mining instead.
Topic: Proof of Work is not moving towards a “technical dead end” (Read 196 times)
There are lots of complained on (PoW bitcoin) mining that its not good for environement thats why other countries are banning it like China.
Not at all. China banned bitcoin mining because of two reasons. First was that they have been facing an energy crisis and thought this could help (it didn't do anything at all to alleviate the problem). Second is that they have been planning on releasing their own altcoin (CBDC) and think if they restrict usage of bitcoin (like cracking down on exchanges) they can increase the popularity of that altcoin (which I seriously doubt). 
One day PoW became unsustainable, if that day ever comes, we should ditch it and move to the next thing.
It could happened actually. Pretty sure bitcoin maxi would still argue still the best one out there. But to check it out, it is the best one however is it sustainable enough? But I like the thought that if isnt worth it at all ditch it.Besides, we've already explained why PoS fails in both centralisation and consensus.
In terms of energy efficiency I think its much sustainable than PoW. There are lots of complained on (PoW bitcoin) mining that its not good for environement thats why other countries are banning it like China. I assume they just dont made up the damaging part on environment but have facts to justify their decision right.
What is the big fuss about it? If it does, you switch to PoS and voila problem solved.
This is not how things work and SegWit is definitely a bad analogy. If Bitcoin switched to another mechanism, it'd work differently. It wouldn't have just "upgraded", we wouldn't be just talking about an "improvement"; the entire project's reliance would have changed. The mechanism of Bitcoin is one of its principles. Principles don't change and if they ever do, it won't be an improvement, see forks. Besides, we've already explained why PoS fails in both centralisation and consensus.
What is the big fuss about it? If it does, you switch to PoS and voila problem solved. The party continues from where it was left. People shouldn't be afraid of the potential protocol upgrades. Some people lost their minds when segwit happened and guess what, bitcoin still lives on. One day PoW became unsustainable, if that day ever comes, we should ditch it and move to the next thing.
What they can do to work around sanctions is convert their oil into energy and mine Bitcoin. I believe Iran did it first and it’s opening a possibilty for a new kind of arbitrage opportunity for oil exporting countries.
As far as I know oil or anything converted from it is not used in Iran's to produce electricity. The different sources are a combination of natural gas (Iran has the biggest gas resources in the world), renewable energies (wind, hydro, solar), nuclear power plants, Biomass (that is converting garbage to electricity) and finally geothermal.Besides, when Iran's oil got sanctioned mainly the customers changed and exports were reduced rather than the being halted. For example exports to Europe was significantly reduced but it was replaced largely by China and South America.
PoW is a mechanism meant to stay forever. It does have its downsides, but I don't see any if we're going to compare it with PoS. It's not ideal, but it's the best one we have. I may, myself, make a megathread one of these days regarding this much discussed debate.
What is the reason for this thread? To give more visibility to the positive point of view of PoW?
For the troller's thread, I'd say the exact opposite. To make the positive point of view of PoW invisible. 
Lol. I assume you are referring mostly to this thread:
Why BTC POW is technically moving towards an dead end.
I have read it but my limited technical knowledge is not enough to comment. There was an interesting discussion there.
What is the reason for this thread? To give more visibility to the positive point of view of PoW?
I would have titled it, "PoW has a long life ahead of it" then, or something like that.
Why BTC POW is technically moving towards an dead end.
I have read it but my limited technical knowledge is not enough to comment. There was an interesting discussion there.
What is the reason for this thread? To give more visibility to the positive point of view of PoW?
I would have titled it, "PoW has a long life ahead of it" then, or something like that.
It’s truly not, and there are trolls that want to convince you that it is. An example is if Russia was sanctioned, banning Russian oil. What they can do to work around sanctions is convert their oil into energy and mine Bitcoin. I believe Iran did it first and it’s opening a possibilty for a new kind of arbitrage opportunity for oil exporting countries.
Jump to: