Idea for the future (Is this possible?)

[FlyingMoose]

You know what would be cool, is if the proof-of-work did more than just waste electricity.  For example, if it did something like protein folding simulations or SETI.  If you're trading BitCoins for CPU cycles, it might as well be doing something useful.

It would actually create value, instead of just wasting energy like it currently does.  It would make money flow into the system for actual work.1

Otherwise, if this takes off, it seems like it will just be a big waste of energy.  Aren't we already short enough on energy?

[1714121995]

1714121995

[1714121995]

1714121995

[kiba]

You know what would be cool, is if the proof-of-work did more than just waste electricity.  For example, if it did something like protein folding simulations or SETI.  If you're trading BitCoins for CPU cycles, it might as well be doing something useful.

It would actually create value, instead of just wasting energy like it currently does.  It would make money flow into the system for actual work.1

Otherwise, if this takes off, it seems like it will just be a big waste of energy.  Aren't we already short enough on energy?

It is already less of a waste. For example, you do not need ten men to guard a vault that store bitcoins. Gold can be now used for other purpose other than money. You don't need a large anti-counterfeiting organization.

Plus, your idea is not new. It would be best if you search the forum for your ideas and see why it won't work.

[theymos]

http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=more_faqs

Isn't the minting process a waste of resources?

All currencies need a method for regulating the money supply and creating circulation. To make Bitcoin secure, a large amount of computer work is required. The Bitcoin process for introducing new coins into circulation is designed to make the currency secure by encouraging users to perform the necessary computational work by awarding the role of introducing new coins into circulation in rough proportion the amount of computer power contributed to this goal.

Why can't it be doing something useful for humanity instead?

SHA-256 hashing has very specific properties that we need. In particular, it generates (with predictable CPU required) numbers that are for all practical purposes purely random, but in a way that is easily verifiable. There are no known “beneficial” calculations that could replace this.

This CPU time and electricity is not entirely wasted, though: it helps protect the network from attack.

[ribuck]

You know what would be cool, is if gold mining did more than just waste energy and cause pollution.  For example, if it dug up cars or food or televisions or something. If you're digging up the ground for gold, you might as well be getting something useful too.

It would actually create value, instead of just wasting energy like it currently does.  It would make wealth flow into the system for actual work.

Otherwise, if gold mining takes off, it seems like it will just be a big waste of energy.  Aren't we already short enough on energy?

[FlyingMoose]

You know what would be cool, is if gold mining did more than just waste energy and cause pollution.  For example, if it dug up cars or food or televisions or something. If you're digging up the ground for gold, you might as well be getting something useful too.

It would actually create value, instead of just wasting energy like it currently does.  It would make wealth flow into the system for actual work.

Otherwise, if gold mining takes off, it seems like it will just be a big waste of energy.  Aren't we already short enough on energy?

This is actually what made me think of posting this topic, I was comparing in my mind the uselessness of BitCoins and gold.

[BitLex]

...more than just waste electricity ... like .... SETI.... something useful.

wouldn't it be cool, if all computers currently running SETI would actually do something useful instead?

[ribuck]

As long as there are computers searching for the gazillionth digit of pi, generating bitcoins represents a relatively useful expenditure of energy.

[FlyingMoose]

Another "proof of work" (like gold) is the swiss watch.  We would all be fine with a $15 disposable quartz watch every couple of years, but a huge amount of effort goes into watches that do the same thing and run into 6 figures.

[td]

wouldn't it be cool, if all computers currently running SETI would actually do something useful instead?

Sorry for my first post to be nothing of value however this has me laughing on the floor.

[FreeMoney]

You know what would be cool, is if the proof-of-work did more than just waste electricity.  For example, if it did something like protein folding simulations or SETI.  If you're trading BitCoins for CPU cycles, it might as well be doing something useful.

It would actually create value, instead of just wasting energy like it currently does.  It would make money flow into the system for actual work.1

Otherwise, if this takes off, it seems like it will just be a big waste of energy.  Aren't we already short enough on energy?

Using a resource for a desired purpose is the opposite of waste. If you have a better purpose for a resource then you won't use it for securing the network you'll use it for the better purpose, so will everyone else, don't worry about that.

Cost <> Waste.   

[ribuck]

Proof of work is widely used in society for all kinds of things.

At my daughter's high school when they select which subjects to study, there are always some courses oversubscribed and some undersubscribed. So the school resolves the conflicts arbitrarily and tells the students to write in with their reasons if they want their preference to be considered.

The school never needs to actually read the reasons given, because the "proof of work" of writing the letter reduces the number of objections to a small enough number that the school can give all of those people their first preference.

[Timo Y]

You know what would be cool, is if gold mining did more than just waste energy and cause pollution.  For example, if it dug up cars or food or televisions or something. If you're digging up the ground for gold, you might as well be getting something useful too.

It would actually create value, instead of just wasting energy like it currently does.  It would make wealth flow into the system for actual work.

Otherwise, if gold mining takes off, it seems like it will just be a big waste of energy.  Aren't we already short enough on energy?

I disagree with this analogy.

Gold is a lousy currency, but for thousands of years it was the best humanity could come up with.

Bitcoin has the potential to be far superior to gold.

Why should Bitcoin delibarately copy the weaknesses of gold?

[Timo Y]

Proof of work is widely used in society for all kinds of things.

At my daughter's high school when they select which subjects to study, there are always some courses oversubscribed and some undersubscribed. So the school resolves the conflicts arbitrarily and tells the students to write in with their reasons if they want their preference to be considered.

The school never needs to actually read the reasons given, because the "proof of work" of writing the letter reduces the number of objections to a small enough number that the school can give all of those people their first preference.

Proof of work is not only widely used in society, it's widely used in biology by all sorts of species. There it's called honest signalling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Honest_signals

Peacock's feathers are a classic example.

I would even go as far as saying that a high school / university degree itself is mostly just proof of work in many cases.  

Like, when a graduate applies for a job, the employer thinks "he got top marks so he must be intelligent and self-disciplined". The employer cares more about these personal traits than the knowledge that was actually tested in the exams.

[hugolp]

The employer cares more about these personal traits than the knowledge that was actually tested in the exams.

And for good reason.

[Timo Y]

You know what would be cool, is if the proof-of-work did more than just waste electricity.  For example, if it did something like protein folding simulations or SETI.  If you're trading BitCoins for CPU cycles, it might as well be doing something useful.

It would actually create value, instead of just wasting energy like it currently does.  It would make money flow into the system for actual work.1

Otherwise, if this takes off, it seems like it will just be a big waste of energy.  Aren't we already short enough on energy?

I asked the same question a few months back when I had just discovered Bitcoin.

The short answer:

Energy isn't "wasted" on proof of work. It's used for something most users value: security.

Just like the money/resources spent on a safe to store gold coins isn't wasted.

Yes, it's macroeconomically sub-optimal, but the money/resources spent on proof of work is only a small fraction of the Bitcoin economy anyhow.

[MoonShadow]

Otherwise, if this takes off, it seems like it will just be a big waste of energy.  Aren't we already short enough on energy?

I'm surprised no one has already mentioned the 'co-generation' aspect of Bitcoin generation.

A not-insignificant percentage of bitcoin generation occurs under situations wherein that roughly the same amount of energy would be expended simply heating up a small space.  I personally know, by admission, that there is at least one Canadian who has been selling off last winter's heat bill.

[ByteCoin]

Otherwise, if this takes off, it seems like it will just be a big waste of energy.

The current proof-of-work scheme has the drawbacks of not having any beneficial side-effects and being particularly suitable for GPU calculation.
It doesn't have to be this way. See http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=203.msg3669#msg3669

ByteCoin

[wumpus]

Otherwise, if this takes off, it seems like it will just be a big waste of energy.

The current proof-of-work scheme has the drawbacks of not having any beneficial side-effects and being particularly suitable for GPU calculation.

Why would being suitable for GPU calculation necessarily be a bad thing? Performance/watt and Performance/$-wise, GPUs are much more efficient computation machines than CPUs.

[MoonShadow]

Otherwise, if this takes off, it seems like it will just be a big waste of energy.

The current proof-of-work scheme has the drawbacks of not having any beneficial side-effects and being particularly suitable for GPU calculation.

Why would being suitable for GPU calculation necessarily be a bad thing? Performance/watt and Performance/$-wise, GPUs are much more efficient computation machines than CPUs.

He only considers it a drawback because he doesn't have a GPU new enough to use the Cuda client, and feels that is somehow an unfair advantage.

[FreeMoney]

While we're on the subject I think roads need more potholes. My scooter only goes 35mph and everyone else gets places so much faster, it isn't fair. Massive potholes would help slow them down.