News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary by Aqueous on Wednesday August 12, 2015 @11:19AM (#10048176)
You can't get rid of mining - that's the cost of trust-less decentralization.

You might be able to make mining more efficient, or based around some other finite resource besides computation power (like storage), but even that's a long-shot.

Re:The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary by tromp on Wednesday August 12, 2015 @11:43AM (#10048327)
You could make mining more memory bound rather than compute bound, somewhat reducing electricity costs and requiring bigger upfront investments (in DRAM chips). This also vastly reduces the performance gap between commodity and custom mining hardware.
Re:The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary by joosters on Wednesday August 12, 2015 @11:59AM (#10048468)
Why would that reduce costs? Miners would have to compete for memory & CPU then.

Even altcoins that have tried this approach have seen custom hardware appearing if the coin grows popular enough.

The approach just seems to be a desperate hope that home users will be able to mine profitably, but ultimately it still fails because those with more resources will win out.

Re:The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary by tromp on Wednesday August 12, 2015 @06:35PM (#10051204)
It shifts, rather than reduces, costs.

No altcoin has used a PoW where memory latency dominates computation.

Home users will never be able to mine profitably (except by claiming their electricity is "free"), but the hope is they can do so within an order of magnitude loss of efficiency.