I’m pretty sure the effort (processing power) required to mine a bitcoin is independent of the history of mining, and depends exclusively on how much processing power is currently being spent trying to produce bitcoin. Unless I’ve drastically misunderstood the algorithm for difficulty, which I’m relatively sure I haven’t (thinking of this page specifically).
The consequences of this seem obvious to me; bitcoin is only difficult to acquire when it is perceived as worth acquiring, meaning that a loss of confidence that it has value leads directly to it being much easier to acquire even without having to purchase it from people who have lost confidence.
What you seem to mean is the cost due to competition: Multiple miners trying the same block and the first one succeeding making all the work of the other mineres on this block worthless.
I meant the increase in difficulty for later blocks inherent in the algorithm.
One could—though I agree that it stretches the analogy—compare the first to gold miners competing in the same physical location—as has happened during the gold rush. This causes competition not exactly for the same gold veins but for the physical space and other resources around.
The second (algorithmical) increase can be compared to mines becoming sparser and sparser—you have to dig deeper.
I’m pretty sure the effort (processing power) required to mine a bitcoin is independent of the history of mining
The bitcoin supply is limited by design and as you approach the last bitcoin which could be mined, the effort needed increases. That makes the effort needed dependent on the “history of mining”, or, more precisely, on how many bitcoins have already been mined.
I’m pretty sure the effort (processing power) required to mine a bitcoin is independent of the history of mining, and depends exclusively on how much processing power is currently being spent trying to produce bitcoin. Unless I’ve drastically misunderstood the algorithm for difficulty, which I’m relatively sure I haven’t (thinking of this page specifically).
The consequences of this seem obvious to me; bitcoin is only difficult to acquire when it is perceived as worth acquiring, meaning that a loss of confidence that it has value leads directly to it being much easier to acquire even without having to purchase it from people who have lost confidence.
What you seem to mean is the cost due to competition: Multiple miners trying the same block and the first one succeeding making all the work of the other mineres on this block worthless.
I meant the increase in difficulty for later blocks inherent in the algorithm.
One could—though I agree that it stretches the analogy—compare the first to gold miners competing in the same physical location—as has happened during the gold rush. This causes competition not exactly for the same gold veins but for the physical space and other resources around.
The second (algorithmical) increase can be compared to mines becoming sparser and sparser—you have to dig deeper.
The bitcoin supply is limited by design and as you approach the last bitcoin which could be mined, the effort needed increases. That makes the effort needed dependent on the “history of mining”, or, more precisely, on how many bitcoins have already been mined.
Or more precisely the currant year.