4 ms·

> Maybe I'm over-interpreting "work", in the physics sense, but won't any proof-of-work scheme have the same problem? To get more coins, miners need to do more

> Maybe I'm over-interpreting "work", in the physics sense, but won't any proof-of-work scheme have the same problem? To get more coins, miners need to do more work, and that takes more energy. Only if we assume mining, in it's current BTC implementation, is the only acceptable PoW. I think there are other PoW alternatives that could be used. And they'll be identified and implemented soon, in the next couple years, as people realize we can swap out SHA hashing for an algorithm that does something productive, and use the output of that algorithm to be the proof of work. The amount of computing power in ASIC miners running today is quite large, and has grown quickly. If we think of those computing resources running something else, and verifying work across nodes, then this is quite possible.

iainmerrick 9y ago
I'm very skeptical that some task can be found that's really useful in itself and is predictable and cheat-proof enough to be usable for something like Bitcoin. I mean, are you thinking of something like SETI or Folding@home? Those are arguably useful, but there's a ton of scope for playing around with the problem scope and developing new variants that might require far fewer resources but remain useful -- and that's a good thing! But it surely makes them less usable as PoW systems.
- TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
  Yes, exactly. I don't think requiring fewer computing resources is a bad thing, having multiple nodes in the blockchain come to the same conclusion could provide a level of trust similar to the existing mining algorithm. That's wasteful as well, but not as wasteful.
  - iainmerrick 9y ago
    But how do you address the fundamental problem of an arms race between miners? They could end up burning 90% of the world's energy production madly calculating protein folds. Is that a good return on investment?
    - TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
      In my opinion, it's a better return than calculating SHA hashes with no aim other than to do work. We could prioritize computing problems by increasing the reward for working "more important" problems (find asteroids that are going to hit us?).
      - iainmerrick 9y ago
        It's better but not much better. How do you avoid an arms race? Who gets to decide what problems are important?

iainmerrick 9y ago

I'm very skeptical that some task can be found that's really useful in itself and is predictable and cheat-proof enough to be usable for something like Bitcoin. I mean, are you thinking of something like SETI or Folding@home? Those are arguably useful, but there's a ton of scope for playing around with the problem scope and developing new variants that might require far fewer resources but remain useful -- and that's a good thing! But it surely makes them less usable as PoW systems.

TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
Yes, exactly. I don't think requiring fewer computing resources is a bad thing, having multiple nodes in the blockchain come to the same conclusion could provide a level of trust similar to the existing mining algorithm. That's wasteful as well, but not as wasteful.
- iainmerrick 9y ago
  But how do you address the fundamental problem of an arms race between miners? They could end up burning 90% of the world's energy production madly calculating protein folds. Is that a good return on investment?
  - TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
    In my opinion, it's a better return than calculating SHA hashes with no aim other than to do work. We could prioritize computing problems by increasing the reward for working "more important" problems (find asteroids that are going to hit us?).
    - iainmerrick 9y ago
      It's better but not much better. How do you avoid an arms race? Who gets to decide what problems are important?