Avatar
Diligent Ninja
ebd908f8addc76bc17c9430a4045c570e6a8733efecb560adaf4ed4affe4e070
Toxic #Bitcoin and Recurring Solar Micronova Maximalist. Class of '11. Shadowy Super Coder and Fringe Minority with Unacceptable Views™ Stack sats Lift racks Print gats Fuck a vax

The difficulty would indeed adjust to factor the new hash - and if you were someone still trying to use more energy on older, less efficient, miners, you'll be left in the dust comparatively, even if you're still consuming more energy than others using the more efficient miners.

Energy and hashrate are definitely NOT unconnected, it's just that they're not connected at a fixed 1:1 ratio. The efficiency of the hashrate production is the abstraction between Bitcoin and the energy used to mine.

The mistake I meant was not including the city

Which is fine for posters that go up around town, notsomuch for posting online

Super common mistake amongst online promoters

How I imagine your DM's look after this statement:

I'm old enough that when I was taught, flowcharts and pseudocode were considered equally sufficient documentation of what the code was supposed to be doing, and simple enough to be easily understood.

But I'm literally a dinosaur in this field (pre-Y2K) so what do I know

The point is that hashrate is what's desirable (and directly linked to Bitcoin), not energy use.

If someone improves efficiency such that energy use is decreased while hashrate increases, THAT is desirable.

Of course, in the real world every time efficiency increases, energy usage goes UP, not down, because the efficient use of energy makes it more affordable and thus available to a wider market of users.

But the energy consumption is incidental to the generation of hash, or else we'd all just be firing up the least efficient (but cheapest) miners available in order to consume as much energy as possible, which is obviously not the case.