> 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 hash
The 51% problem is deep. Any discussion of a solution to it should
begin with a link to an article that shows a profound discovery has
been made. Selfish mining prevention and pollution should be on
bitcoin-discussion, but it appears that list is not active.
The problem with Andrew's idea below is
> 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.
The share (hash power) of a miner is proportional to capital investment, not
the newness of that investment. The efficiency of a new mine (incl
> 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,
