If the value rises and therefore the security payment does then this will inevitably increase of course. The nature of the pow requiring more hardware investment does look like it will result in a lower energy consumption to security payment ratio though and I applaud it for that.
It also seems to me like it will provide better resilience during lower value market conditions as once the hardware has been invested in it has a much lower operating profitability floor. Low value conditions will result in less new hardware coming online but the existing hardware is more likely to remain online.
But resource consumption is consumption so the core debate must be whether one sees value in securing a network through pow, if you do then it’s worthwhile and if you don’t it’s a waste. No technical aspect can resolve that philosophical question.
Mining all my Grin on 100% green locally produced electricity.
For BTC mining such a decision is impossible unless cheap green electricity is produced in excess in your neighborhood (e.g. China). Since for Grin the electricity cost are only a small part of the total costs, it is valid option to go all green on mining .
Is it possible that there is a tiny little irrational bias in that argumentation? Just questioning because, what would be the conclusion, if electricity cost would be the majority, or the only cost for mining? I think than all electricity cheaper then the break-even cost would go into mining. A very low break-even price would be the plausible result. It seems the cheapest electricity per unit is either green, or excess electricity from a plant that can not regulate fast enough. What would you naturally do, if your grin miner is profitable up to $1 per kWh but unfortunately tonight your green locally produced electricity is limited?
Sadly. Since good advertising campaigns are often based on lies. A feature to better adopt to green energy would be, to withstand thousands of power-cycles and boot within 1 second. Or other, be able to scale down in energy demand automagically, if supply is limited.
In my case this is purely rational. I cannot speak for others.
I am idealistic, I like to be sustainable, green etc but up to a point that I can afford it.
Since the electricity is only a minor part of the total cost, the premium I have to pay to go green is within the margins that I am willing to pay. If electricity would be the major cost (e.g. Bitcoin mining), in the location I am mining it would be to expensive for me to make that decision. In case of Bitcoin I simply cannot afford to make such an idealistic choice. So the problem is that if you are mining small scale in the country you live in, your decisions are dominated by the local energy prices. For large scale farmers it is a different story since they have the option to relocate to places with cheap abundant green energy.
Although Grins Cuckoo Cycle is consuming less power and as such is more sustainable than Bitcoins double SHA-256, the Grin G1 and G1 Mini miners itself are most likely produced in a unsustainable way.
This is something I conveniently ignore since there is nothing I or we can do about.
But the main point is that to my knowledge, Grin is the most power efficient and green PoW algorithms out there, which is pretty awesome and and often overlooked strength of Grin as a project.