4 ms·

Any coins / tokens that implement this or something similar?

Nextgrid 6y ago
The proof of work in tokens has to be a net waste of energy; the idea is that the proof of work is costly enough to prevent a 51% attack. Making the proof of work do “useful” things would lower the cost of said work thus lowering the barrier of entry to an attack.
- lupire 6y ago
  That's only true if the work is profitable for you and not something lie for folding@home
  - cwkoss 6y ago
    How can you chain folding@home puzzles? PoW requires that a block's solution proves that the solver had access to the previous block.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  The linked paper says the opposite. > This results in PoWs whose completion does not waste energy but instead is useful for the solution of computational problems of practical interest.
  - inter_netuser 6y ago
    do you believe every paper that comes across without critical review? This 31 page paper most definitely has not been fully evaluated by anyone commenting on it in this thread.
    - betterunix2 6y ago
      In fact, nobody seems to have read the first page, which has a note that the definition of "proof of useful work" in that paper is trivial. An updated version is available here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/559 https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/559
      - exdsq 6y ago
        Thanks for finding a better paper, I just went for the first paper with the relevant title as I was on my phone.
- tom_mellior 6y ago
  > Making the proof of work do “useful” things would lower the cost of said work thus lowering the barrier of entry to an attack. How does this follow? If the work is so universally useful that it lowers the cost of the work, it lowers the cost for everyone. Not just "attackers", but "defenders" as well. As it happens, Bitcoin miners mine not out of the goodness of their hearts but for financial profit. Bitcoin POW is "useful" to them: It gives them more money than they put in. They do it precisely because the cost of said work is lower than the returns.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    The problem is that the usefulness of said work might not be the same to everyone. Let's imagine a potential coin where mining involves cracking hashes. This work is useless to you and me (thus the only extracted value would be the reward from mining), but might be useful to someone who's got hashes to crack (so they get extra value out of the same process). In this case, the latter party can enjoy a 51% attack at a fraction of the cost of the former.
- Igelau 6y ago
  Proof of waste.
Uberphallus 6y ago
Gridcoin.

The proof of work in tokens has to be a net waste of energy; the idea is that the proof of work is costly enough to prevent a 51% attack. Making the proof of work do “useful” things would lower the cost of said work thus lowering the barrier of entry to an attack.

lupire 6y ago
That's only true if the work is profitable for you and not something lie for folding@home
- cwkoss 6y ago
  How can you chain folding@home puzzles? PoW requires that a block's solution proves that the solver had access to the previous block.
guerrilla 6y ago
The linked paper says the opposite. > This results in PoWs whose completion does not waste energy but instead is useful for the solution of computational problems of practical interest.
- inter_netuser 6y ago
  do you believe every paper that comes across without critical review? This 31 page paper most definitely has not been fully evaluated by anyone commenting on it in this thread.
  - betterunix2 6y ago
    In fact, nobody seems to have read the first page, which has a note that the definition of "proof of useful work" in that paper is trivial. An updated version is available here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/559 https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/559
    - exdsq 6y ago
      Thanks for finding a better paper, I just went for the first paper with the relevant title as I was on my phone.
tom_mellior 6y ago
> Making the proof of work do “useful” things would lower the cost of said work thus lowering the barrier of entry to an attack. How does this follow? If the work is so universally useful that it lowers the cost of the work, it lowers the cost for everyone. Not just "attackers", but "defenders" as well. As it happens, Bitcoin miners mine not out of the goodness of their hearts but for financial profit. Bitcoin POW is "useful" to them: It gives them more money than they put in. They do it precisely because the cost of said work is lower than the returns.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  The problem is that the usefulness of said work might not be the same to everyone. Let's imagine a potential coin where mining involves cracking hashes. This work is useless to you and me (thus the only extracted value would be the reward from mining), but might be useful to someone who's got hashes to crack (so they get extra value out of the same process). In this case, the latter party can enjoy a 51% attack at a fraction of the cost of the former.
Igelau 6y ago
Proof of waste.

Uberphallus 6y ago

Gridcoin.