Hi Joshua, thank you for your question. I would argue those aren't meant to be hard money. Bitcoin is a purpose-built savings technology that's designed to be secure and impervious to debasement throughout time. Also, Bitcoin's lightning network facilitates nearly free and instant settlement.
Not only are supply schedules of those projects you mentioned variable, but I'd argue proof-of-stake is a suboptimal validation method because eventually human nature will seep into the protocol.
Finally, those projects look an awful lot like unregistered securities and I'm afraid the next 18 months could be very difficult for the vast majority of crypto. Let me know what you think I'm missing.
I think that is fair. BTC has a means to an end though, eventually, it will run out of crumbs so to speak, and the cost to run it is unfavorable, though as long as the price continues it isn't. Ha
Yeah, there's some truth to that. Fortunately bitcoin's difficulty adjustments make mining viable even as hash rate or computing power oscillates over time. I'd argue bitcoin's hash rate and energy consumption is already more than secure (more electricity than Argentina or Sweden use in a year), but as mining revenue declines with halvings, we'll need to see how the economics play out as certain miners are priced out based on their higher energy costs.
People often overlook how plentiful (virtually-free) stranded and otherwise wasted electricity is. Bitcoin miners are looking all around the world and finding it via natural gas flaring, methane generated from waste sites, and wind and solar projects that produce far too much electricity from time to time. In the future, miners will need effectively free energy to compete.
Long story short, mining is getting more competitive, and should be profitable into the future. Bitcoin is secure even if hash rate never rises again.
Not bad, no value add to others? Would 3rd world be interested in coins that cost less to transfer like AVAX or SOL in the end? No love for ETH?
Hi Joshua, thank you for your question. I would argue those aren't meant to be hard money. Bitcoin is a purpose-built savings technology that's designed to be secure and impervious to debasement throughout time. Also, Bitcoin's lightning network facilitates nearly free and instant settlement.
Not only are supply schedules of those projects you mentioned variable, but I'd argue proof-of-stake is a suboptimal validation method because eventually human nature will seep into the protocol.
Finally, those projects look an awful lot like unregistered securities and I'm afraid the next 18 months could be very difficult for the vast majority of crypto. Let me know what you think I'm missing.
I think that is fair. BTC has a means to an end though, eventually, it will run out of crumbs so to speak, and the cost to run it is unfavorable, though as long as the price continues it isn't. Ha
Yeah, there's some truth to that. Fortunately bitcoin's difficulty adjustments make mining viable even as hash rate or computing power oscillates over time. I'd argue bitcoin's hash rate and energy consumption is already more than secure (more electricity than Argentina or Sweden use in a year), but as mining revenue declines with halvings, we'll need to see how the economics play out as certain miners are priced out based on their higher energy costs.
People often overlook how plentiful (virtually-free) stranded and otherwise wasted electricity is. Bitcoin miners are looking all around the world and finding it via natural gas flaring, methane generated from waste sites, and wind and solar projects that produce far too much electricity from time to time. In the future, miners will need effectively free energy to compete.
Long story short, mining is getting more competitive, and should be profitable into the future. Bitcoin is secure even if hash rate never rises again.