A lot of the increase in hashrate is just the improvement to Asic efficiency, which doesn't mean it's more secure.
I think power consumption is a much better way to measure security than hash rate imo
You can always make a better Asic but the power itself is capped by the universe
đź‘€
This is the correct take.
I think you are onto something but missing a step. Cost of hash provided is the correct measurement of how much security I add to the network. My cost of hash provided is a mix of 2 things. Up front cost for the new miner amortized over the Life of the miner and recurring for electric.
That means improved efficiency forcing miners to all upgrade is more secure than getting that hash by a magical jump in efficiency.
I think asics will hit physical limits in time. Efficiency improvements come from smaller transistors, they are already catching CPU and GPU scale which are slowing the rate that they shrink.
Physical limits will be reached, but are already being worked around in different ways. This is also typical of the type of communication used (electrons in metal).
Photons are actually much more efficient for communication (which is basically why we are replacing all existing coper lines with optic fiber). There are already working prototypes of these kinds of designs and i think a working prototype "cpu". Still requires a lot of engineering but i don't think we'll ever reach "we cannot improve this anymore ever".
After about 6 more 1/2 ing events,
Only solo bitaxe will secure the network…
#RemindMe_20490409
Hashprice
I think you can measure security to some degree, but there is always an element of uncertainty.
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Axiom-of-Resistance
As security is not just hashrate. Security always comes down to people taking risks
