1
Consider a world where energy is free and plentiful. Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies, are given value since they are 'proof' of work. This work comes at the cost of:
- a. time
- b. energy
By removing the cost of electricity, hardware expenditure becomes the ceiling for hashrates. Surely this makes cryptocurrencies less valuable. Wouldn't the market become hypersaturated as supply went up? On large enough scale, hardware turnover rates might provide some limiting factor to supply- but for the most part mining operations should be able to keep up with the increasing difficulty of the hash.
I can see otherways the blockchain would be useful, but I'm starting to wonder whether cryptocurrencies would continue to work.
To close voter: this is a question about the economics of mining, and is therefore on topic here. While free energy is unlikely, the discovery of alternative energies far cheaper than what we have today is possible in the future. – maservant – 2016-12-13T02:04:18.313
There's still the upfront cost that you'll have to pay for despite having cheap alternative sources. I'll be voting to close this as it is impossible to have free energy which yields no side-effects. – renlord – 2016-12-22T23:13:54.843