The proof-of-work is spurious and not useful computation

[remotemass]

Some people say that the proof-of-work is actually very useful computation because it is securing the network, but I don't think that is the point when one says that all the SHA256 computation that miners do for proof-of-work is completely useless computation.
Of course, it serves a purpose and that it is very much needed but the point is that it is pretty much a waste of computation because you are not actually getting anything from all those SHA256 hashings.
So, I think that saying it is also useful computation is besides the point.
The point is that maybe there is a way of having a proof-of-work that uses the computational processing power in a more interesting way.
We should be clear of what we mean when we say that all that computation is spurious and useless.
It is indeed basically a waste, just as it was a waste with hashcash proof-of-work for email.  

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

Perhaps Satoshi didn't have enough time to make it more useful than simply securing the network.

[Bralex]

Perhaps Satoshi didn't have enough time to make it more useful than simply securing the network.

Yes see what he means making sure a 3+billion dollar marketcap crypto is secure is not very useful, what do you class as useful please op?

You have said how un-useful it is but you should give us some examples what would be useful. 

Thanks

[remotemass]

Perhaps Satoshi didn't have enough time to make it more useful than simply securing the network.

Yes see what he means making sure a 3+billion dollar marketcap crypto is secure is not very useful, what do you class as useful please op?

You have said how un-useful it is but you should give us some examples what would be useful. 

Thanks

For instance instead of having to find a SHA256 hashing with a given number of leading zeros, having to find a specific pattern in an irrational number decimal expression. This way we would at least get to know more about the proprieties of numbers. 

[pawel7777]

...
The point is that maybe there is a way of having a proof-of-work that uses the computational processing power in a more interesting way.
 ...

I would agree with that, but I don't think it's practically possible to implement. Whatever the 'new way' would be, it would take a radical change and there's no guarantee that the new feature won't become 'useless' again in a few years.

So let's say we changed the protocol so the mining process also does computation of protein foldings, but very likely at some point the methodology will change and the whole process will become obsolete or ineffective ('useless').

In other words, to even make a serious discussion about such change, you'd need to come up with some universal idea of utilising PoW computations, that you know for sure will be useful 5,10 or 20 years from now. I can't think of anything like that.

[abyrnes81]

Maybe this hash computing can be used for another purpose, like secure the third party services (like exchange, web wallet ,etc).

[xDan]

Yes, it's not "useful", and that is a good thing.

1. avoids politics (what calculations do we solve!?!? what is "good"? what is "useful"??) Don't think that wouldn't be another huge source of argument.
2. keeps it simple. Simpler the code, less opportunities for problems or security issues or other strange and unexpected incentives appearing.

(2) is most important, any extra "utility" is far eclipsed by the downside of extra complexity. Bitcoin needs to be as simple as a knife with as little that can go wrong as possible. This simplicity and security is valuable, it's what we are getting in return for the energy spent on hashing.

POW being "useful" would be a bad thing.

[gentlemand]

I'm happy to leave useful computations to the alt scene. We've gone a bit too far down the road to change the whole nature of the algorithm now. I'm sure it crossed Satoshi's mind but the more it advances, the more carefully thought out everything turns out to be.

[Soros Shorts]

The proof-of-work completed needs to be validated very quickly by all nodes broadcasting the transaction. This requirement rules out a lot of interesting stuff that can only be validated by repeating the computation process.

On top of that, the type of work done needs to have a concept of difficulty that can be controlled in a granular and repeatable fashion.

[abyrnes81]

PoW is the best way to keep network secure, so i think we shouldn't change
And so far i know, only PoW is worked good for most cryptocurrency

But, how about Proof-of-Idle ? I it good to secure bitcoin network ?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=682918.0;all

I think that for the bitcoin the best algorithm  is the proof of work, not the PoS or the PoI. Maybe in the future the things will change but for the moment the PoW is the best algorithm.

[dothebeats]

Some people say that the proof-of-work is actually very useful computation because it is securing the network, but I don't think that is the point when one says that all the SHA256 computation that miners do for proof-of-work is completely useless computation.
Of course, it serves a purpose and that it is very much needed but the point is that it is pretty much a waste of computation because you are not actually getting anything from all those SHA256 hashings.
So, I think that saying it is also useful computation is besides the point.
The point is that maybe there is a way of having a proof-of-work that uses the computational processing power in a more interesting way.
We should be clear of what we mean when we say that all that computation is spurious and useless.
It is indeed basically a waste, just as it was a waste with hashcash proof-of-work for email.  

PoW secures the network other than any available algorithms out there. The 'useless'  concept is good for the security and the overall network. Satoshi would have thought of the energy that will be spent as the difficulty goes up, but heck, the protocol itself is very well-designed and simple enough for problems not to occur frequently.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Some people say that the proof-of-work is actually very useful computation because it is securing the network, but I don't think that is the point when one says that all the SHA256 computation that miners do for proof-of-work is completely useless computation.
Of course, it serves a purpose and that it is very much needed but the point is that it is pretty much a waste of computation because you are not actually getting anything from all those SHA256 hashings.
So, I think that saying it is also useful computation is besides the point.
The point is that maybe there is a way of having a proof-of-work that uses the computational processing power in a more interesting way.
We should be clear of what we mean when we say that all that computation is spurious and useless.
It is indeed basically a waste, just as it was a waste with hashcash proof-of-work for email.  

PoW secures the network other than any available algorithms out there. The 'useless'  concept is good for the security and the overall network. Satoshi would have thought of the energy that will be spent as the difficulty goes up, but heck, the protocol itself is very well-designed and simple enough for problems not to occur frequently.

This. What you guys don't get is "all that waste" is required to make it difficult to the point is pratically impossible for the network to be compromised.

[odolvlobo]

In the long run, mining is wasteful due to the economics of mining. For example, suppose miners get value from mining simply by heating their homes. The money they save is put back into mining and the difficulty goes up. As a result, the value gained by saving on their heating bills is lost to the increased cost of mining.

[AgentofCoin]

...
The point is that maybe there is a way of having a proof-of-work that uses the computational processing power in a more interesting way.
...

There are altcoins that are doing what you have proposed.
Here is one example:
http://primecoin.io/

[12345mm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics

-if anyone would like to produce a useful coin in the future (from a mathematics perspective) it should solve one of the unsolved problems in mathematics (or get us fundamentally closer or provide greater understanding or accuracy to solving one such problem)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems

-bonus points / $1,000,000 for solving one of the millennium prize problems

-accepting donations / VC to dev such a coin (background in economics , political science , theoretical mathematics , and computer science) - personally i'd like to make a coin that would solve the Yang–Mills existence and mass gap problem as this would make a great leap forward in fundamental understanding of particle physics (let us know the true nature / correct scale of 4 dimensional space) but the P versus NP problem may be easier to integrate into a decentralized competitively computed framework and could represent , if solved , an insight into the nature of the singularity ... on the other hand ... cheeseburger time ...

[jeffhuys]

You're completely right. It's only useful to generate bitcoins. They should create an altcoin which works with SETI@home or Folding@home (you know, those research-mining program thingies)

[hua_hui]

When bitcoin becomes the alternative of currency and the main money of international remittance! You will see the convenience it brings to us and how low of the fee for the remittance. We will know that computational power is not wasted at all.

[Bizmark13]

You're completely right. It's only useful to generate bitcoins. They should create an altcoin which works with SETI@home or Folding@home (you know, those research-mining program thingies)

There are already several altcoins out there that have implemented exactly what you are describing. For example, Gridcoin mining uses BOINC. SETI@home and Rosetta@home are both BOINC-based projects and there are many others too - i.e. you could also mine gridcoins while solving the calculations required for mathematical modeling or weather prediction. For a full list of BOINC-based projects see:

http://boincstats.com/en/stats/projectStatsInfo

Curecoin is another similar coin that uses Folding@home which is a similar distributed computing project but is not part of BOINC. Foldingcoin is another very similar coin that is built on top of the Counterparty platform.

It should be noted however that the calculations required to actually mine Gridcoin and fold Curecoin (not sure about Foldingcoin) aren't actually the ones that solve protein structure verification. Instead, what happens is that you submit shares to either BOINC projects or Folding@home. Then the miner/folder measures your contribution to these projects and calculates your reward by comparing it with the average contribution of the entire network. Hence the actual "folding" part is still centralized.

On a related note, Primecoin and Riecoin are coins that use the computing power of their networks to solve simple but computationally intensive mathematical problems where all the algorithms and calculations required are actually embedded into the protocol itself in a fully decentralized manner.