Thanks for replying, and I certainly appreciate that you write and think about optimizations to make, they are absolutely needed.
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.
Great to hear.
I can't disagree more with the quote on efficiency being counterproductive.
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.