> Also with merge mining and proof of space we can be quite efficient in the future.

Proof of memory (space) is just proof of work with extra steps. It does not reduce energy consumption.

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Proof-of-Memory-Facade

Merge mining is non-dedicated cost, so also does not improve energy efficiency. The irreducible *cost* is what matters.

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Dedicated-Cost-Principle

e

On Sep 17, 2018, at 06:18, Andrew <onelineproof@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I see what you say, however, since the proposal as I have read it says "And this will keep happening as long as hashrate keeps rising," - what actually happens in the case hashrate stagnates or falls?
> 
> In general, a target hashrate can be set by users (can be less or more
> than the peak hashrate). As long as hashrate is rising and still
> didn't reach the target, miners will incrementally get the reserve
> fees. Once the "contract" times out, the remaining part can be used as
> fees by the users who created the reserve fee "contract". So if
> hashrate remains the same or falls, then users get the reserve fees
> back.
> 
> I agree that we can't stop people from being greedy. If they are not
> Bitcoin mining, they will try to put their energy to earn in some
> other way...The hashrate is related the demand for Bitcoin (price) and
> the amount of fees/subsidies the miners will get paid. For every level
> of mining rewards (based on demand) there exists a limit on the
> hashrate. Once hashrate gets large enough, no new miners (additional
> hashrate) will want to join since their share of the hashrate is too
> small to make a profit.
> 
> Also with merge mining and proof of space we can be quite efficient in
> the future. But of course I sympathize with the "don't be greedy"
> philosophy, and it can be good to educate people to use less resources
> than they need, just I think it's a bit outside of the scope of what
> the Bitcoin software protocol does.