10 ms·
The problem with useful proof of work, is that the emission rate becomes very hard to control. In most PoW consensus algorithms, a difficulty parameter is const
by whiskers08xmt 9y ago
The problem with useful proof of work, is that the emission rate becomes very hard to control. In most PoW consensus algorithms, a difficulty parameter is constantly updated to keep the average block-time around 10 minutes. To do useful PoW consensus, you'd need to find a useful problem, where the difficulty of solving the different problems is easily solved, while the solution to the next block, is still dependent on the solution from the last block.
- quickthrower2 9y agoIn addition, you need a problem that is hard to solve but quick to verify. I reckon most useful problems would not be quick to verify.
- ben_w 9y agoMy gut feeling says a set of open AI challenges, where the work is “train to solve this with accuracy > $difficultyParameter”, and the proof is something that both tests the accuracy of the work, and (if this idea is even possible) demonstrates that it wasn’t over-fitting/memorising.
- amelius 9y agoNP complete problems are hard to solve but can be verified in polynomial time. There are many useful problems in this class. (Of course here hard to solve would mean in the "worst case", which may not hold for every problem instance).
- asymmetric 9y ago> In most PoW consensus algorithms, a difficulty parameter is constantly updated to keep the average block-time around 10 minutes. It's only 10 minutes in Bitcoin, rather than in most PoW algorithms.