Bitcoin Forum

If I understand this, currently the bitcoin network is larger than the top 500 supercomputers. And all of this "work" is being carried out just to ensure the integrity of itself. This seems completely vain. What if the network utilized more dynamic work such as work from one or many of the BOINC networks AND maintained the security of the network? This would probably require a new block chain, but this would be the first kind of currency backed by SCIENCE. Not backed by some arbitrary algorithm, but backed by discovery.

I realize a major problem with this concept. This would create a kind of centralization. Who would dictate the work the network would generate? Would a strong cryptographic key be used to administer the work flow to each client? This would resemble a central authority. But what if we allow the network to decided what work it wants to do by consensus. Allow people to vote on the type of work, and those nodes that don't vote would automatically follow the greater consensus.

This would give governments and other authorities a reason to keep the network alive and maybe even support it. It would function as an engine of invention.

Why would anyone want to destroy that?

Misleading thread title.

Dude, how much effort do you think should be put into securing the network? 10%? 1%? 0%?

This isn't the project you are looking for, happy trails!

The issue with this is that anything that is remotely useful is reciprocally un-random.  True randomness is the basis for all modern cryptography, and most cryptographic "cracks" have to do with discovered flaws in a computer's (or human's) fundamental difficulty in creating truly random numbers.

Actually if done the right way this could maybe make the network more secure.

It would infuse new variables into the mix. Variables that computers can't generate on their own.

By making the suggestion to have the "work" being done be more "useful", you have essentially shown that you haven't taken the time to read and learn about *what* is actually being done by the mining rigs.

The problem is that the "work" is actually calculating the hashes in order to find a block, above a certain difficulty, that can be added to the block chain.  In order to plug into another parallel computing project, you'd have to find a way to make it still add to the Bitcoin block chain in order to continue to verify the transactions in those blocks. 

That would most likely require the parallel computing project to work with the Bitcoin project and divvy up the work for the project so that we solve a block for them, they solve a block for us. 

Unfortunately, they're probably not going to cooperate, and it would mess with the Bitcoin economy, because now you're artificially changing the time it takes to find blocks.  Not to mention all of the work it will take to make the protocols and "work units" interoperable.

It's just not practical.  Mining takes resources, because it's supposed to take resources.  Mining isn't supposed to be "free".

Your thinking inside the box still. Yes I Haven't reviewed the source code but I will soon. I'm new to programming and bitcoin is not the first project that has made me want to learn how to code.

BOINC already has a credit system in place. It shouldn't be too hard to apply some built in limiting scheme to make the credits level off over time.

The same concept applies, instead of a block chain you have a "solution chain". Yes I know each solution would have to be in some kind of hash form to fit in a merkle tree. Maybe not, the solution chain would just be large and would have to be trimmed frequently compared to the merkle tree configuration of bitcoin.

No need to be an ass. The box is here, we like it, it needs to be how it is. There are many boxes like it, this one is ours, like it or leave it.

The idea behind bitcoin is to use as little resources as possible to store and transfer actual useful information (transaction data) (because it costs to store and transmit data). However for securing the network, each progressive transactions block must be harder to create than the previous ones, such that increasing the technological computing power, it is impossible to retrace your own blockchain and replace the one in existence just because each block has the same complexity. I have used BOINC exactly twice and I like the concept.

You have to decide what is useful: processing data that may or may not provide new valuable information to the world, or produce guaranteed unique cryptographic tokens that are impossible to fake, rework, deteriorate or replace, for the purpose of economical utility and reduced resources waste.

This one has my vote.

1 BTC : 20 Bucks (atm)
1 BTC : 5 Bucks (Some time in the future)  
Cure for AIDS : Priceless

What if we could make it more secure than the current bitcoin implementation? Its software, anything is possible.  

I just think people would rather support a technology that could potentially save lives vs create speculative bubbles that once popped leave us with nothing but wasted cpu cycles.  

This could be the next generation of the bitcoin technology.

No.

You have the values of BTC wrongly, in the future 1 BTC will be worth more than it is today. AIDS is still treatable (you can live 35 years more with anti-viral medication, you can have children that are AIDS free with proper care and you can prevent AIDS by using a 0.5$ prophylactic). Scientists are already working on some vaccines at the moment and the answer is not found in computation.

But if you think you want to help the world while receiving the costs of doing so, go ahead, nobody's stopping you.

Ever since I started crunching for bitcoin, I've felt bad about shtting down my boinc projects...I'm a scientist at heart, but I have no job and this is one of my few investments...(I'm young..and not paying the electric bills :) )

edit:
I guess I can get by on bitcoin and namecoin for pc and playstation grid for my science needs...they've added a lot of different projects since last i checked! HIV, Cancer protease research (i wouldn't put a bet on that one), and others...

That is the worst logic I've ever heard. Are you saying a condom cures somebody already sick with AIDS? And where does the condom plan come in for IV drug users...they aren't human enough to try to save? Some people make me sick. And you have no clue how much computation you take for granted. How do you think we keep coming up with new medicines? How do you think our planes, cars, and microchips get designed? Computation is a keystone of sceen for potential biological activity of a drug? enough said, you were talking out of your sphincter