Quote from: inBitweTrust on October 01, 2014, 05:12:27 PM

Quote from: kokojie on October 01, 2014, 05:06:05 PM

This is a FACT, and since it's a fact, therefore it will be true even when Bitcoin has no inflation (ie. when coin supply run out, the PoW expense will still exist). Therefore, YOU are the one that is confusing inflation with this perpetual PoW expense. I have no problem with Bitcoin inflation, at all.

If heat is a product instead of something thrown away and ASIC costs are amortized with block rewards and transaction fees than what is the problem?

Are you suggesting future mass ASIC manufacturing/shipping costs will be higher than campaign political costs? Bitshares would be more interesting if Daniel stuck with TaPoS instead of settling on DPoS.
There are security and future political costs with campaigning and lobbying that will need to be considered when you introduce more human involvement into securing the blockchain.

I suppose there are limits with how many things we need to heat on earth though.... but this isn't a pressing dilemma.

What are you talking about? there's no proof the heat can be utilized efficiently, other than heating the facility in winter, all the big mining farms do not try to utilize the heat at all. Also even if the heat is 100% efficiently utilized, that only balance out the electricity cost. The hardware cost is still there, and most likely higher because now you want to use the heat, which means additional hardware components.

There's also no proof there's political expense associated with DPoS. I'm a delegate in btsx, and I didn't spend anything to get voted in. Also, even if there is expense, as long as it stays within the eco-system, I don't see any problem with that. Unlike Bitcoin PoW, which transfers wealth out of the eco-system, into the pockets of hardware vendor and electric company.