Thanks for the effort on a new project but I just don't buy it. It's like saying that you don't pollute because you are using an electric car but the electricity for your electric car is produced by a big old diesel engine. You should choose a less energy consuming coin as metronome if you want to call the coin low energy, not just choose bitcoin because is popular.... maybe you know it already and you will change the metronome coin once you gain popularity.....
Hey CryptoNakagata!
I am part of the dev team, please allow me to shed some light on this matter:
- As stated in the whitepaper, the metronome is subjected to consensus, which means it can be changed in the future if the community wishes so
- There is no problem in having BTC as metronome. It is actually a very logical step as it does not depend on BLE to exist. Therefore there is no correlation between BTC global hashrate and BLE global hashrate. If this situation changes in the future, we shall evaluate and decide based on that.
- Last but not least, and following the whitepaper again, this coin introduces the concept of coinchain, which predicts that coins can rely on each other in order to save energy. It is possible that BLE could be a metronome of any other coin, an this new coin being a metronome of a third coin. So, from a base metronome (BTC) you could theoretically have endless coins, thus diluting the energy spent per transaction (in average)!