j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckMÞ<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=721.msg7783#msg7783">Quote from: gridecon on August 06, 2010, 03:53:24 AM</a></div><div class="quote">I understand that bitcoin's utility as a currency is independent of the method of minting - that is crucial to what I'm trying to express. My claim is that the positive properties of bitcoin's security could be implemented using a different method of minting, and that users will likely gravitate to currencies with whatever they believe are the most fair and efficient minting systems. <br/><br/></div><br/><br/>Go for it. In the meantime, I think that you both miss some fundamental truths.<br/><br/>1) The point of the system is not to 'mint' coins at a high energy cost, but a high computational cost, to protect the system no matter how high Moore's law may go. <br/><br/>2) The award of bitcoins is not 'minting' really anyway, it is an award by lottery for participating in the strenghtening the currency. Those 50 bitcoins already existed from the moment that the rules were conceived and the process set into motion. They are just distrubuted from the original owner in a systematic manner. <br/><br/> The computations are a neccessary part of keeping the system strong and confidence high, and are a small price to pay when compared to the costs that we all incur from the administration of fiat currencies. I think that it was a brilliant idea.</div> text/html
https://whatsonchain.com/tx/03b446ea2af25f83fb9e2a14b79e1a2b99e2ebbae3af8790a78eb9ec29802c4f