I wrote about possible optimizations because I think we have to be proactive in that field. For example recently I've heard about the idea to introduce custom authorizations (like in EOS). Such customization is great and really useful, however it introduces potential source of a lot of long term memory consumption, so we need to reduce current usage in order to make space for new feature. Also, let's say someone comes to Hive and says "I have a service that will bring 10 million new users with it." We should be ready to answer "Not a problem" rather than "That's tough. We need a year to fix our code so we can accommodate that many users."
I understand the concerns about making resources more affordable that could lead to their wasteful overuse for activity that does not bring value. But we are using RC to express "cost" of those resources. As flawed as that system is, making code consume less real life resources does not automatically mean it will be reflected with lesser RC cost.
I can't disagree more with the quote on efficiency being counterproductive. It is only counterproductive to the narrow goal of making people consume less resources. I think the opposite is true. Only cheap resources can be wasted, the damage is especially evident when those resources are subsidized, precisely because in such environment there is no need to invest in efficiency. However when you are making some process more efficient, you free scarce resources to be used elsewhere, providing opportunity to spark more innovation, more productivity, more value for the same cost. And yes, that leads to even more resources being consumed. But that is natural. People will want to consume more and will strive towards goal of being able to afford more consumption - efficiency is one of the means to achieve that goal. Trying to artificially limit people in that field is to go against human nature and is doomed to failure. :o)
Thanks for replying, and I certainly appreciate that you write and think about optimizations to make, they are absolutely needed.
Great to hear.
Perhaps we understood it differently. I don't think the goal is to make people consume less resources. Let's take plastic bags (and all sorts of plastic wrappings) as an example. In previous times, people used re-usable containers for things, the containers lasted a long time and people would bring home beverages and all sorts of other things in those containers, then clean them and re-use them. With greater efficiency, plastic bags became ultra cheap, and that led to people buying them, using once and throwing them away, which has resulted in unimaginable pollution and loss of wildlife. People were not drinking and eating less before, when they used containers. It was just a re-usable more expensive container, whereas later there were ultra cheap throwaway bags.
As you are saying that efficiency gains won't necessarily result in cheaper RC costs, maybe we are good. I just thought it was an important point to mention. I do want millions (and eventually billions) of people to freely use our blockchain, and I don't want it to be clogged up by bots with bad intentions (like the commons typically can be ruined by people who don't care about others), and I don't want abuse to make it more difficult to scale and remain affordable such that we'd have to choose between scalability and decentralization. But if none of this is a problem, then great.