Quote from: LaudaM on June 25, 2015, 10:28:16 PM

Quote from: mrkubanftw on June 25, 2015, 09:03:02 PM

Quote from: LaudaM on June 25, 2015, 08:37:37 PM

-snip-

You are correct. I got mine off of the same place. No idea why i pulled that number though.

So 88MW is more along the lines of 160MW.

That's quite interesting. I've never had a problem with it and it has always shown me the correct information.
However I do not agree with you on the point where governments are going to take action vs farms. You're free to spend your energy in any way you want as long as you're paying for it, right?

More hashrate does increase the security if we consider the possibility of a 51%. To be more specific, more distributed hashrate (not concentrated) increases the security. I haven't seen a good proposal to solve the issue of a potential 51% attack so far.

I'm still waiting for that "Bitcoin should use PoS like Peercoin" post. Roll Eyes

I agree with you that more hash-rate would increase security in a decentralized aspect. Although this is not the behavior we are seeing. We are seeing asic companies actively centralizing the network by creating farms and mining on their own hardware. Counteracting the very purpose of bitcoin (decentralized network).