This would not have happened if there was only a community of crypto-punks holders and coders behind the back of the industry. You and I would not know anything about cryptocurrency today if ever such people as Charles Shrem, Roger Ver, Barry Silbert, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss and many other businessmen would not want to make money on these technologies.
I agree with this, but times are changing. We begun with CPU, than GPU, than Asic,now POS/POA/others are cominng, things and tech are moving on. There is no logic in having them static in a given state.
Consumers didn’t need these computing powers. They needed beautiful boxes and LEDs. And I will say this. Bitcoin - it was he, the old man Bitcoin again rejoiced this technology race. Give a little more time and the chips will be more economical tenfold with the same power as it is now. And this will be just the beginning of the tech race. Competition and market economy are the strongest motivators for humanity.
I would agree to this IF the computing power is needed for solving something, but that’s not the case. ALL this POW computing power is used for finding a block, not for solving it, that’s the problem. It’s an uncessary race. Mostly 99.999% are used for this and 0.001% for solving the real important process. In POS this is eleminated as it makes no sense to have so much computing power used for nothing.
And the second… The lion’s share of the crypto market capitalization came through electricity and the cost of ASICs, and not through the exchange. This is what I mean when I talk about prime cost.
I think here you have a wrong understanding of what prime costs really are and what they are used for. Let me explain.
- First of all Prime cost doesn’t really fit into crypto as it refers only to materials and labour and excludes everything else. In case you stil want to use prime cost you have exclude electricity as it’s not used in the “production process”, remember you need only less than 1% for solving it and 99+% are used for other tasks (finding the block).
- Second, a higher prime cost doesn’t make it automaticlly more value as it’s most often an indicator that something is not competive enough. If producer A has prime costs of 100$ for product X and producer B has prime cost of 50$ for product X it’s no rocket science that producer B is more competive than producer A.
- Third, you should refer to Factors of Production instead prime cost as this perfectly fits what happens. (See link at the end). But even than, it’s again far from optimal as using resources that can not be used again, are lost and and and, like electricity, hardware that has no more any value (Asics) doesn’t again make sense if these factors can be optimized. Too much is needed for the same process, again, you solve the very same process in POS as in POW, simple as that.
And one more thing. When I need to measure the potential of cryptocurrency, I just look at the graph of complexity. Where should I look in the case of a POS-coin?
Not sure what you have in mind here and how the potential of cryptocurrency and graph of complexity fit together
- I personally measure the potential of a cryptocurrency by several factors beginning from transaction speed, transactions/s, scalability, whatever not. There is no difference in comparing them.
- About graph of complexity i only can guess that you have in mind the difficutly chart, or? In case that’s correct, you have this on POS coins too, just simplified. In case you have something else in mind please explain.
prime cost, noun, the direct cost of a commodity in terms of the materials and labour involved in its production, excluding fixed costs.
fixed costs, For businesses, fixed costs include anything that must be paid for production to occur, yet they remain the same whether production is high or low