Hacker News Reader

> we don’t have perfect code or computers efficient enough to do proof of work

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of proof of work precisely that it takes resources to perform this work? I.e. it's not a bug, it's a feature.

View on HN

It's a feature from the viewpoint of ensuring that the chain works at intended. It's a bug from the viewpoint of climate change. Or perhaps a better way of putting it: the fact that proof of work burns a lot of electricity is not a feature, the protocol does not directly rely on electricity being used; that part is a misfeature, aka bug.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com