Kathy made a good point, and my response is: Firstly, theoretically, miners of this protocol would attack the blockchain for the sake of double spending. However, in reality, based on our past observations, such as the recent blockchain restructuring event of Monero, it was actually a temporary transfer of leased computing power from other protocols for restructuring. The biggest difference between Bitcoin and Monero is: Monero has a wide range of computing power sources, and hackers have even been able to control the CPU of a meat machine to mine Monero. Miners are not bound to Monero. And Bitcoin has entered the Asic era, where Asic computing power can only mine Bitcoin (and Bitcoin's insignificant forked coins), and Bitcoin can only be mined by Asic mining machines - the fate of Asic miners is deeply bound to the fate of Bitcoin. Asic miners do not have the motivation to attack Bitcoin, which is a consideration of short-term and long-term profits. There is a metaphor to say that for a small PoW chain, there are countless ships in the world. If this one is sunk, I have another one. But for Bitcoin miners, there is only one ship in the world, and if we sink it, we will all perish together. So when restructuring and attacks occur, we need to guard against other protocols, not this one. Secondly, regarding the issue of reducing electricity bills and energy consumption, it will enhance overall efficiency. And finally, the increase in strength will make Bitcoin more secure, and this conclusion is definitely correct. Because our essence is to guard against others. There are no other competitors in the industry anymore; Outside of the industry, let me give an example. In the future, AI computing power may be very large. Although GPU mining Bitcoin has exited history, there are too many GPUs that cannot withstand AI. The ultimate improvement of Bitcoin's power is essentially to guard against computing power from outside the protocol. You can't say that after finally gaining strength, Bitcoin is no longer secure, right?