| ▲ | pas 4 days ago |
| why? what's better? |
|
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| It would be interesting if a "coin" were tied to protein folding prediction or something else useful. |
| |
| ▲ | MadnessASAP 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Proof-of-Work fails if the work has value. | | |
| ▲ | ssd532 4 days ago | parent [-] | | why? | | |
| ▲ | MadnessASAP 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In Proof-of-Work the cost of the work is what keeps the network honest. If the work has value then an attacker is free to invest as many resources as I want into subverting the network. Even a failed attack can still be profitable, just less so. In another scenario, where the works value is less then the cost you're still hoping that at no point in the future will an attacker figure out a way to do the work at a net profit. The only way the network can be trusted is if the work has definitely now and always, 0 value. | | |
| ▲ | chipsrafferty 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Not littering has value. However, if I don't litter, it doesn't benefit me, and I cannot profit off of it; no matter how eco-friendly I am, I get no value from it. | |
| ▲ | OldfieldFund 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Am I wrong in saying that the work has negative value? And there are different degrees of that. Bitcoin's negative value is larger. | | |
| ▲ | MadnessASAP 3 days ago | parent [-] | | You are not wrong, the output has no value. The work then being Value Out - Value In. |
|
| |
| ▲ | red-iron-pine 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | because Proof-of-Work only generates value for an arbitrary, made up coin if it has no other real value. Otherwise you're making money that way, and the value of the coin is tied to the work that you did. until recently gold was a pretty but mostly useless metal. too heavy for practical uses, too melty for industrial uses, too soft for weapons, etc. but it didn't rust and was a good medium of exchange because it had no other real value. once it has value outside of being currency it's less useful in that capacity, since now its value is tied to how much you can get for it by utilizing it in computers, chemical reactions, etc.... same basic idea with PoW | |
| ▲ | 4gotunameagain 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think it's true, look up Proof of Useful Work | | |
| ▲ | moomin 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Which, ironically, is used by the attacker in this case. | | |
| ▲ | OneDeuxTriSeiGo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's worth noting that lots of projects claim to be "Proofs of Useful Work" without the academic rigor to actually prove so. The attacker of course being one of those who has failed to do so. 1. Their paper has not been accepted by any conference or journal. 2. Neither author on their paper is an academic (or practicing engineer or researcher) in the fields of computer science, economics, game theory, or cryptography (or any maths in general). The one is a C-level exec with what seems to be minimal CS experience and the other is a psychology professor. Neither author appears to have qualifications to be able to assume some level of rigor (before looking at the underlying work). 3. The paper is a bunch of text and buzzwords about AI and AGI intermixed with some academic history and some discussions on psychology. Of the 47 pages of the paper, only about 1-2 pages are semi-technical in major with an additional ~3 pages of code included to show their algorithm. There are two graphs relevant to the protocol on those 1-2 pages and neither one addresses any security aspects, instead showing it's performance at doing the "useful" part. So again to reiterate, their "academic paper" on the security of their PoUW algorithm includes no rigorous analysis of the protocol. TLDR They aren't doing PoUW. They are doing cooperative compute with a centralised or federated coordinator dishing out rewards. Proofs of Useful Work do actually exist and are an interesting field but they take a lot of rigor and analysis to be accepted and not immediately ripped to shreds. What the attacker claims is not even close to meeting that bar. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jayknight 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Isn't that what GridCoin is? https://gridcoin.us/ |
|
|
| ▲ | subsistence234 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Since ASICs are built for mining one specific algorithm and no other, ASIC miners are invested in the survival of "their" mining algorithm. If there are several competing coins using the same algorithm, it may be possible to incentivize ASIC miners to destroy one of them if it benefits the others, but even then it's risky. CPUs in contrast can be used for a million different things, CPU miners are not incentivized to support any given crypto project. It's also much easier to rent large amounts of CPUs than of ASICs. |
|
| ▲ | latchkey 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Disclaimer: ran a 150k GPU eth mining operation PoS is the obvious choice now that ETH has had a bit of time to run. But, I remember when they went through the switch (before ETH PoS). Doing some sort of variation on GPU memory hard mining would have been a smart choice (ethash, progpow, etc), knowing full well that ETH would eventually go PoS. It would have given all the miners something to switch to, instead of just shutting down entirely, because there wasn't anything but ghost chains. |
| |
| ▲ | subsistence234 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm still a fan of PoW. PoS incentivizes centralization. | | |
| ▲ | latchkey 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Hilariously posting in a thread about a 51% attack happening, because of miner centralization. | | |
| ▲ | subsistence234 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It's mainly an argument against CPU/GPU mining. If you have invested in specialized hardware that can mine only one coin, you're strongly incentivized to protect trust in that coin. An attacker like Qubic would need to pay you a lot more than they need to pay a CPU miner. | | |
| ▲ | latchkey 3 days ago | parent [-] | | So then, _centralize_ around an ASIC? Tell me, how well did that work for Grin? | | |
| ▲ | subsistence234 3 days ago | parent [-] | | >Tell me, how well did that work for Grin? Crypto projects succeed/fail for all kinds of reasons that are completely unrelated to de-/centralization. You'll have to be more specific about what Grin's case should teach us. >So then, _centralize_ around an ASIC? ASICs are commodities. For BTC (SHA-256) there are at least 8 different companies producing ASICS, and even a smaller project like KAS (kHeavyHash) has >4 competing companies. Not much centralization risk on that side, at least not for mature projects (which a hypothetical ASIC-XMR would be by now). The main challenge for ASIC-miners is the same as for CPU- and GPU-miners: cheap electricity -- and that's not something that can easily be centralized. |
|
|
|
|
|
