4 ms·

Proof of work relies on computations that are hard to do but easy to check that someone has done. The entire network has to check someone's proposed result. The

by sjburt 7y ago

Proof of work relies on computations that are hard to do but easy to check that someone has done. The entire network has to check someone's proposed result. There are very few computations that have sufficient asymmetry to the degree needed to make bitcoin work, and the types of things that SETI@home needs don't fit that bill.

sprash 7y ago
The projects Primecoin and Riecoin are digital currencies that try to provide proof of work algorithms with (somewhat) scientific value.
- Forbo 7y ago
  There's GridCoin, as well, which utilizes BOINC for work units.
  - tech_man7 7y ago
    Golem (www.golem.network) is building a general-purpose distributed computation platform where people who need compute power pay using cryptocurrency. And developers can build software to run on it (and get paid when it's used).
    - Forbo 7y ago
      I vouched for your comment, as it's factually correct near as I can tell. I've been interested in the project, especially since Joanna Rutkowska joined them.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
Isn't Folding@Home trying to run an asymmetrical computation, though? The broad strokes as I understand them are that you have a sequence of amines, you arrange them into a three-dimensional protein (the hard part) by whatever method, and then you evaluate the energy bound within your structure (the easier part?). Lower energy is better. The obvious problem is that there's no judgment of "correct" or "incorrect". Analogizing to a bitcoin proof-of-work, it would be as if a hash beginning with more zeroes always outranked a hash beginning with fewer zeroes, but there was no way to know whether your hash started with "enough" zeroes or not.
- tinco 7y ago
  You could incorporate that in a quorum blockchain like Stellar (or Ripple I guess), but the whole point of those is that they remove the need for PoW so that's a bit useless. Maybe it's a cool way to build trust in such a network though..
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  RE: folding@home, How much money will the medical cartel make off of the fruits of all that free labor? Do users even know what they're folding? How do users know that they're not building bioweapons?
  - ska 7y ago
    For the most part this is fundamental research of the type that is typically funded from public grants, these are not pharma companies... As for what they are contributing too, it's all pretty well documented.
  - dekhn 7y ago
    protein folding simulations don't produce a lot of money for pharma (I say that as somebody with a F@H publication to my name specifically doing research on GPCRs, which are a huge pharma target). users can see what the workunits are doing, and choose subprojects, presumably avoiding bioweapons if that's important to them.
    - dmurray 7y ago
      How could the average technically savvy user, let's say willing to use Google a bit but not to obtain a biochemistry degree, tell which subprojects are possible bioweapons? Not a rhetorical question.
      - dekhn 7y ago
        Typically, there is a stated/intended plan for each project. This page lists active projects: https://apps.foldingathome.org/psummary https://apps.foldingathome.org/psummary Unfortunately, the project pages return a 502 but Google cache helps: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:q6DvOtoa6dYJ:https://apps.foldingathome.org/project%3Fp%3D11714+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:q6DvOt... I'm going to guess that if you inspect each project it has a purported (positive) medical use and you'd have to make a judgement call on each project based on good knowledge of biology as to whether it had a bioweapons application. I doubt, but cannot say for certain that F@H won't have any projects that are stated as bioweapons and I'm skeptical that somebody working on a bioweapon would try to cloak its intent, and come up with a plausible medical application so they could get free F@H cycles. I remember the days of logging into national labs supercomputers and seeing the other jobs on the system, such as job_name "submarine_geometry_optimizer" and the user_name was "electric_boat" or something similar.

by sjburt 7y ago

sprash 7y ago

The projects Primecoin and Riecoin are digital currencies that try to provide proof of work algorithms with (somewhat) scientific value.

Forbo 7y ago
There's GridCoin, as well, which utilizes BOINC for work units.
- tech_man7 7y ago
  Golem (www.golem.network) is building a general-purpose distributed computation platform where people who need compute power pay using cryptocurrency. And developers can build software to run on it (and get paid when it's used).
  - Forbo 7y ago
    I vouched for your comment, as it's factually correct near as I can tell. I've been interested in the project, especially since Joanna Rutkowska joined them.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

Isn't Folding@Home trying to run an asymmetrical computation, though? The broad strokes as I understand them are that you have a sequence of amines, you arrange them into a three-dimensional protein (the hard part) by whatever method, and then you evaluate the energy bound within your structure (the easier part?). Lower energy is better. The obvious problem is that there's no judgment of "correct" or "incorrect". Analogizing to a bitcoin proof-of-work, it would be as if a hash beginning with more zeroes always outranked a hash beginning with fewer zeroes, but there was no way to know whether your hash started with "enough" zeroes or not.

tinco 7y ago
You could incorporate that in a quorum blockchain like Stellar (or Ripple I guess), but the whole point of those is that they remove the need for PoW so that's a bit useless. Maybe it's a cool way to build trust in such a network though..
jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
RE: folding@home, How much money will the medical cartel make off of the fruits of all that free labor? Do users even know what they're folding? How do users know that they're not building bioweapons?
- ska 7y ago
  For the most part this is fundamental research of the type that is typically funded from public grants, these are not pharma companies... As for what they are contributing too, it's all pretty well documented.
- dekhn 7y ago
  protein folding simulations don't produce a lot of money for pharma (I say that as somebody with a F@H publication to my name specifically doing research on GPCRs, which are a huge pharma target). users can see what the workunits are doing, and choose subprojects, presumably avoiding bioweapons if that's important to them.
  - dmurray 7y ago
    How could the average technically savvy user, let's say willing to use Google a bit but not to obtain a biochemistry degree, tell which subprojects are possible bioweapons? Not a rhetorical question.
    - dekhn 7y ago
      Typically, there is a stated/intended plan for each project. This page lists active projects: https://apps.foldingathome.org/psummary https://apps.foldingathome.org/psummary Unfortunately, the project pages return a 502 but Google cache helps: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:q6DvOtoa6dYJ:https://apps.foldingathome.org/project%3Fp%3D11714+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:q6DvOt... I'm going to guess that if you inspect each project it has a purported (positive) medical use and you'd have to make a judgement call on each project based on good knowledge of biology as to whether it had a bioweapons application. I doubt, but cannot say for certain that F@H won't have any projects that are stated as bioweapons and I'm skeptical that somebody working on a bioweapon would try to cloak its intent, and come up with a plausible medical application so they could get free F@H cycles. I remember the days of logging into national labs supercomputers and seeing the other jobs on the system, such as job_name "submarine_geometry_optimizer" and the user_name was "electric_boat" or something similar.