I discussed in an other thread about how to use a more "usefull" algorithm for proof of work.

Folding protein would be a good candidate, but as I mentioned it's not easy to tweak it into doing what SHA-256 can do.

The key difference is that SHA-256 (or any other digest algorithm, for that matter) allows the miner to identify himself into the digest.  By doing so, it is not possible to "steel" the work of other.

Basically with digests the hash of the coinbase transaction is in the proof of work.   So its author can publish it and noone can use it to forge an other proof of work with an other coinbase transaction.  It's tough to imagine something similar with protein folding.

Yet I proposed something.

Let imagine we have a list of polypeptides whose we are interested in knowing their three-dimensional structure.  I guess this basically consists in knowing which conformation of their rotational angles (because from what I know there is a rotational degree of freedom for each peptid link, right?) gives the lowest energy.

My idea is that instead of working on each of these polypeptides brutally, as if there were all as important, each miner takes a preference list order, which would be the exact translation of the coinbase transaction.

So he tries to find a lowest geometric conformation for each polypetide (as compared to the previously known lowest ones), but with a amelioration factor (the ratio between the new lowest divided by the previous lowest) that would decrease in the exact very order of the list mentioned above.

By doing so, when publishing the result, it will be difficult if not impossible to re-use those results, since they are computed in a very specific performance order.  They will be usefull for scientists (they do indeed give a better known geometrical conformation), but useless for other miners willing to create an other proof of work for an other preference list order.

Oui.  Mais bon en général les gens ne s'amusent pas à jeter l'argent par les fenêtres donc ils font attention.  Ceci dit il est clair qu'il y a déjà des tas de bitcoins qui ont été perdus.

Il y a toutes raisons de penser que ça reste négligeable.   Comme l'or perdu au fond des océans du temps de la flibusterie.

Et même si c'est significatif, ça n'est un problème que pour ceux qui ont perdu des bitcoins.

Weren't you the one who was accusing of projecting human aspects on artificial intelligence?

Creativity is the capability of creating stuff.  Whatever method is used to do so does not matter.

Did a Computer Bug Help Deep Blue Beat Kasparov?

Creativity often hides serendipity.

Indeed creativity is not necessary for autonomy.  My bad.  Yet it is usefull.  And humans use it, so if machines are to do as good a job as humans, they might need to use it too.

Empirical evidence is not the appropriate tool for inferring the possibility of things that do not exist in the present.

Creativity is necessary for autonomy (because autonomy means you can adapt to unexpected situations, and to do so you need creativity).

And autonomy is necessary if you want a system where no human labor is necessary (which is the main objective of RBE proponents, iirc).

I'm no expert but it seems to me that you're talking about twentieth century style AI.   Nowadays computing engineers for AI use genetic algorithms, artificial neural networks and stuff like that.  They don't program the behavior of the machine.  Not with "if then else" lines anyway.   Moreover, your brain also has "parameters":  the maximum number of neurons, the physical laws they obey, and so on.   A computer might actually have more degrees of freedom than your brain can ever have.  At least because your brain is trapped in your skull and can't grow bigger than that.

Yeah I mentioned that earlier.  You need intelligence so that your machines can be autonomous and creative in their decision-making.

But you want to avoid self-awareness because you want to make sure they will obey.

Consciousness is only desirable if you want to create a computational replica of your mind.  If you want immortality or something.

Why wouldn't it be possible?  Why your brain would be so different from a machine?  It's just a bunch of cells, with a chemico-electric behavior that can be modelled.

Indeed it does for some people.  I was just asking why.  Why would anyone worry if humanity doesn't exist in one thousand years?   Carpe diem


Not at all.

I'm gonna be a bit provocative here, but here I go:

Why do you care so much about humanity surviving in the long run??  You will probably be dead anyway.

For instance, there is a serious hypothesis that decline of fertility might worsen in coming centuries so that humanity might vanish "peacefully".  Is that really a bad thing?  Nothing is supposed to be eternal.

If you send a transaction on the bitcoin network with a 0BTC fee, do you ask for charity?

No, I just said that the price will be zero, because of the definition of the price as the last observed transaction on the market.  Nothing to do with a relation between labor and product.

Yeah I was just thinking about that.   It's kind of far fetched, but in a sense, yes.   Except that we all know that normally if you want to eat a sandwich you just can't rely on charity (I don't think so, anyway).

Don't put double quotes around a phrase I did not write.

There will be no fixed price (you can not prevent someone from buying something that could be free if this pleases him), but since we know there will always be at least a few transactions occurring for zero, then the price is zero.  Again, a bit like transaction fees in bitcoin.

Well, the price is the last observed amount exchanged for a transaction, isn't it?

Some people will manage to buy at zero, but if I don't agree with this price, I don't have to sell it at this price.  There sure will be other transactions for different amounts, but the lower, the only one we can talk about here, is zero.

No.  Because as I wrote, "you might find someone" who will give it away for no payment.  I wrote that he will just order one of his robots to make it.  Some people would accept to do that for free (I'm pretty sure at least one will).  Some others won't.  It's subjective.


It's like for bitcoin transactions.  There is no fixed price for transactions, but to me it's zero.  Because I'm pretty sure there will always be a miner that will accept to process my transaction even if there is no fee.  It might just take a bit more time.

Indeed you're going into moral issues.  I don't want to talk about it.  I enjoyed the SF discussion but the rest is much less interesting.


I might not care.  But I'm pretty sure someone would.  Whether or not the proportion of people caring about people not owning means of production could be enough to ensure that everyone owns means of production is contingent.  And I'm not interested in discussing it.

You're annoying.  I don't know.  It's just as if you asked me if I give to beggars in the street.  Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.  What I decide to do or not to do on these matters is my business.  There's nothing preventing them from doing what I did, anyway.

See considerations above about the power of the sun compared to a possible maximum number of human beings.


You might not need it, but with self-replicating machines, it can emerge.

If someone is willing to pay, and if money is still useful, sure, I could sell some.