3 ms·

Umm.. wouldn't it be better (for the environment) if you just donate the CPU time to folding@home or similar thing and they would certify that you donated? I t

by js8 11y ago

Umm.. wouldn't it be better (for the environment) if you just donate the CPU time to folding@home or similar thing and they would certify that you donated? I think someone suggested there already is a cryptocurrency like that.

DanWaterworth 11y ago
The idea is one-computer, one-vote. This is easy is if you don't also want it to be decentralized.
- danbruc 11y ago
  I would say the actually desired goal is more like one person [1], one vote and the hard part is anonymity not decentralization. [1] Actually it is probably more complicated, one entity, one vote, so that it can include companies and the like. This alone seems non-trivial, what exactly qualifies as a separate entity?
garethrees 11y ago
There are a couple of cryptocurrencies based on this idea (CureCoin [1] and FoldingCoin [2]). But as far as I can tell these both rely on a trusted third party to distribute the folding work and verify that it was done. That's because unlike hashcash and similar proofs of work via hashing, protein folding is not cheap to verify. If you're concerned about energy use and willing to trust a third party to verify the transactions, then why not use VISA? (I looked at the CureCoin site and skimmed the FoldingCoin white paper [3], but I couldn't find any description of how they verify the folding work. Can someone point me at an explanation?) [1] https://www.curecoin.net https://www.curecoin.net [2] http://foldingcoin.net http://foldingcoin.net [3] http://foldingcoin.net/the-coin/white-paper/ http://foldingcoin.net/the-coin/white-paper/
- js8 11y ago
  > If you're concerned about energy use and willing to trust a third party to verify the transactions, then why not use VISA? Well, that's my question.. They are already willing to trust the party that generated the code that they had legal access to their computer for this purpose. I think we would all be better off if they just required proof of monetary donation to some charity or something. All that was accomplished here was shifting of trust on these individuals at some energy expense; it's insane. It's nice theoretical exercise for sure, but I sincerely hope that anyone attempting to build yet another monetary system on waste of energy will seriously reconsider the idea.

by js8 11y ago

DanWaterworth 11y ago

The idea is one-computer, one-vote. This is easy is if you don't also want it to be decentralized.

danbruc 11y ago
I would say the actually desired goal is more like one person [1], one vote and the hard part is anonymity not decentralization. [1] Actually it is probably more complicated, one entity, one vote, so that it can include companies and the like. This alone seems non-trivial, what exactly qualifies as a separate entity?

garethrees 11y ago

There are a couple of cryptocurrencies based on this idea (CureCoin [1] and FoldingCoin [2]). But as far as I can tell these both rely on a trusted third party to distribute the folding work and verify that it was done. That's because unlike hashcash and similar proofs of work via hashing, protein folding is not cheap to verify. If you're concerned about energy use and willing to trust a third party to verify the transactions, then why not use VISA? (I looked at the CureCoin site and skimmed the FoldingCoin white paper [3], but I couldn't find any description of how they verify the folding work. Can someone point me at an explanation?) [1] https://www.curecoin.net https://www.curecoin.net [2] http://foldingcoin.net http://foldingcoin.net [3] http://foldingcoin.net/the-coin/white-paper/ http://foldingcoin.net/the-coin/white-paper/

js8 11y ago
> If you're concerned about energy use and willing to trust a third party to verify the transactions, then why not use VISA? Well, that's my question.. They are already willing to trust the party that generated the code that they had legal access to their computer for this purpose. I think we would all be better off if they just required proof of monetary donation to some charity or something. All that was accomplished here was shifting of trust on these individuals at some energy expense; it's insane. It's nice theoretical exercise for sure, but I sincerely hope that anyone attempting to build yet another monetary system on waste of energy will seriously reconsider the idea.