Год назад перестало здесь дальше обсуждаться.

Почему, интересно?  Знает кто.

Нужно создать механику, четкий алгоритм/схему превращения идей в реальный продукт.

В этой схеме как раз и должны быть проработаны процессы привлечения недостающих ресурсов,  денег, разработчиков, времени.

Кстати, крипта ибн блокчейн  - чуть ли не самый совершенный на сегодня механизм, который все это позволяет легко реализовывать.  DAO, всякие ланчпады, все буквально уже на блюдечке, да не на одном.  Бери и делай.... но у многих затыки все равно.   

Вполне может быть интересно подробнее по таким затыкам пройтись.  По себе знаю, что главный затык - прокрастинация идеегенераторов

Эх...

STEPN

как много в этом слове.


кажется там даже не особо парятся на тему возможностей "абьюза" GPS  и это симптоматично и угрожающе для PoW

Обидно, что тема заглохла.
Никто не подскажет, были ли здесь на форуме в последнее время аналогичные обсуждения среди англоязычной аудитории?

And this fact immediately offers to solve many applicative, including technical problems.  In what applications is this already used?  After all, you can do interesting things with this feature.
For example, sub-chains without pre-mining, but with PoS, in which coins are also mined by bitcoin miners, in case they freeze their bitcoins in these sub-chains for a certain number of bitcoin blocks (the lifetime set by the protocol of this sub-chain), on some kind of smart contracts.
I wonder if this has not been implemented anywhere yet.

There are still technical aspects here, even without ideology. For example, if you drop the topic of proving that a digital label corresponds to a real physical object (even unsubstantiated attempts to do this also have technical aspects), but simply give the miner the right to put this label.

 Then such a technical aspect has already been raised here. How difficult will it be in any transactions to allocate tags attached to coins during mining? I assume that this complexity is not infinite, but how big - it would be interesting to understand. Immediately, the second question arises technically, does it make sense to limit the lifetime of tags inside the bitcoin chain to a certain number of blocks?

I thought there was some dislike in your question. Or was it just my imagination?

Yes, why not? The only question is what kind of community, who will fill this label with value. Equipment manufacturers were mentioned first of all, because they could potentially really give this additional value quite noticeable, they could implement their own sub-chain. And also, the question of the possibility of some proof of mining on the equipment of a particular manufacturer is still relevant.

Is it now impossible for any transaction in bitcoin to find out through a retrospective study in which blocks all the components were extracted by the miners? I do not know how difficult it is to calculate, but since there are all inputs and outputs in the circuit, it is certainly possible.

The protocol, by the way, could provide that in the bitcoin chain, the additional value from the manufacturer lives no more than n blocks, so as not to really load the main chain and motivate miners to immediately output the mined bitcoins into the side chain to clear the bits from the labels and receive the manufacturer's tokens.

In bitcoin, there is no absolute mixing, since all the inputs and outputs are always known, there are no balances in the chain, only history.

But for an optimal and complementary scheme of separating the value of bitcoin from the value contributed by specific manufacturers of devices for miners, it is just possible to think about creating side chains of manufacturers. In which there would be just a real separation.

In the topic of bitcoin tags, of course, the most interesting question is the algorithmic proof that calculations (any flow of information) had a specific hardware source. If algorithmic is impossible, then it would be interesting to know about the ways that make it as difficult as possible to replace (things like mac, IMEI, etc.)

I don't have everything ready yet to dispel boredom. But the topic is part (and not very mandatory) of another, much larger and not boring at all.

...

Imagine that ASIC manufacturers have found a parallel application for their devices, which is in demand by millions of consumers, and not by tens of thousands of miners.
The idea would have gained more interest.

What makes us limit ourselves to trustless and only cryptography in order to obtain the required functionality? Just an understanding that it is ugly to spoil a clean implementation with dirty inclusions?

There are two possible ways.

The first is that the manufacturer will not mind that his label is put even untruthfully. It is for advertising purposes.

And the second way is that the manufacturer deploys its own small private chain (or non-private) in which the correspondence between the equipment id and the public key is fixed. It could look like a side chain in which only bitcoins with their labels go, there could be a division of values. A miner would send bitcoins to that network, receive a token of that chain, and return bitcoins back to the main chain.

Point, for example, is to get some kind of tokens on the bitcoin chain that carry additional value in addition to the value of bitcoin itself

Advertising is the engine of trade.
Where there is value, there is advertising, and vice versa.

How difficult is the implementation of the scheme, when such a fake would be impossible or as difficult as possible?

There are a certain number of ASIC manufacturers.

Has anyone suggested the idea of labeling bitcoins mined on the equipment of a particular manufacturer so that the manufacturer can offer separate incentives, bonuses for the owners of bitcoins mined on their equipment?

Is your project presented on github in any form? I didn't find it.

TheProtago

What part do you want to discuss in this thread?
Content of the idea or options for your further actions?