Proof-of-work problems designed to be solved by the reversible computers

[jvanname]

So I have recently been thinking about cryptocurrency proof-of-work (POW) problems and how one can use these POW problems to advance mathematics, science, or technology. The problem of developing a useful POW problem is not trivial, but there are much more difficult problems in cryptography than simply producing a useful POW (such as efficient fully homomorphic encryption and cryptographic code obfuscation which is in some sense impossible). It should therefore be so surprise when someone finds a useful POW problem for cryptocurrencies. I propose that one could use cryptocurrency POW problems in order to incentivize the development of reversible computers.

A reversible computer is a computer where almost every process can be run in reverse. In particular, reversible computers cannot delete too much information since deleting information is an irreversible process (however, with reversible computation, spent bits can be recovered through uncomputation). Reversible computers have the potential to be much more energy efficient than conventional computers because reversible computers are not limited by Landauer's principle which states that every bit erased costs ln(2)*k*T energy where T is the temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant. On the other hand, while anything calculable by a conventional computer is also calculable by a reversible computer, reversible computation typically requires more steps than conventional computation. Therefore, since reversible computers have a computational overhead, businesses currently do not have a strong incentive to produce reversible computational devices. On the other hand, since conventional computation has a limited amount of efficiency, businesses need to start developing reversible computing devices right now so that they have reversible computing infrastructure and inventions to work with for the time when conventional computers reach their limits and reversible computers are necessary in order to continue to improve performance. However, businesses currently do not have a financial incentive to produce reversible computing devices at the moment due to the computational overhead that is required with reversible computation.

An RCO-POW problem (reversible computing optimized POW) is a POW problem designed to be solved just as easily using a reversible computation device as it is to be solved using a conventional device. An RCO-POW problem for cryptocurrencies will incentivize the development of reversible computational devices since these RCO-POW problems do not introduce any computational overhead simply from being solved using reversible computers and thus reversible computational devices could be used to solve these TCO-POW problems immediately.

RCO-POW problem description: Suppose that f is a randomizing permutation from {0,1}^324 to {0,1}^324 which is just as easily computable using a reversible circuit without ancilla or garbage bits as it is with a conventional computer (f is similar to a cryptographic hash function). For example, f could be an iteration of a reversible cellular automaton or f could be the function computed by a circuit consisting of random Toffoli gates or Fredkin gates. Then the RCO-POW problem is to find some 256 bit hash k of the block header along with some 68 bit nonce x where f(k#x)<b such that # denotes concatenation and b is an adjustable 324 bit number used to control the difficulty of the RCO-POW problem.

Comments

-In the future, all high-performance computers will be reversible because conventional computers will eventually be too inefficient to use and conventional computers will generate too much heat.

-Reversible computation will help pave the way for quantum computation. After all, reversible computation is in some sense simply quantum computation without entanglement.

-RCO-POW problems have little disadvantage over the POW problems which are currently in use since these RCO-POW problems are just as efficient
as hash-based POW problems. Furthermore, if the circuit computing f contains enough non-linear gates, then the RCO-POW problem will be as secure as a hash-based POW problem. I therefore have little concern that the function f will be insecure. The only possible disadvantage that I can see is that RCO-POW problems may foster mining centralization since there will likely be only a couple of businesses that will be able to produce reversible computing devices. Of course, one can mitigate this possible issue by including multiple RCO-POW problems in a cryptocurrency or including both RCO-POW problems and ASIC-resistant problems in a cryptocurrency (multiple RCO-POW problems will also incentivize the development for a diverse range of reversible computational technologies instead of any particular technology and give all reversible computational technologies a fair chance).

-RCO-POW problems may even increase the security of cryptocurrencies since governments will be much less likely to attack, ban, or restrict cryptocurrencies if their proof-of-work problems were used to advance science.

-Other cryptocurrencies have already attempted to include a useful POW problem. For example, the objective of the proof-of-work for Primecoin and Gapcoin is to find certain interesting chains of prime numbers. However, the utility and significance of these proof-of-work problems for these cryptocurrencies is questionable (I can only consider the POW for Primecoin to be significant once someone obtains a cryptosystem platform, theorem, or at least a conjecture as a result of these Primecoin computer calculations).

-An RCO-POW problem will probably be best suited for a new cryptocurrency rather than an existing cryptocurrency since the miners will not be very happy if their POW-problem is switched. An established cryptocurrency will only switch its cryptocurrency to an RCO-POW problem if the switch is gradual enough that the miners will not lose too much and if another cryptocurrency implements an RCO-POW first.

Questions-I want to know your opinions on RCO-POW problems for cryptocurrencies.

-Would you be more willing to use a particular cryptocurrency if its POW-problem incentivized the development of reversible computers or otherwise advanced technology or science in any way (here assume that useful POW-problem does not have any drawbacks including security concerns, mining centralization risks, inefficiencies or other issues)? Will you support a switch in an existing cryptocurrency from a conventional POW problem to an RCO-POW problem?

-Do you think that an RCO-POW problem will dissuade governments from placing restrictions or bans against cryptocurrencies?

-Will you consider a cryptocurrency as more valuable if its POW problem were used to incentivize the development of the reversible computer?

[1714797812]

1714797812

[1714797812]

1714797812

[1714797812]

1714797812

[bathrobehero]

I've never heard of revesible computing before but after reading a couple articles about it, it's a fascinating topic.

[loremipsum]

I hadn't heard of a reversible computer before neither, but I looked into it and found it very interesting. Here is an article that explains it in simple terms for those who are interested:
https://www.cise.ufl.edu/research/revcomp/what.html

jvanname, does that mean that you have to design a PoW algorithm from scratch? If current algos can be modified to be RCO-POW friendly, then I would go for that. But I think that in order for a cryptocurrency to succeed you need to give incentives to miners (apart from the RCO-POW advantage). My opinion is that it needs to be ASIC-resistant and as decentralised as possible ie. CPU minable.

[jvanname]

I will need to construct several new POW algorithm since the current POW algorithms and all hash functions are unsuitable as RCO-POW problems. I already have an outline of how these RCO-POW algorithms will work.

A couple of the RCO-POW algorithms that I have in mind use chaotic non-linear 2D reversible cellular automata. Chaotic reversible cellular automata have already been studied by the cryptography community and they have been proposed to use as symmetric encryption-decryption schemes. Therefore, these RCO-POW problems are not completely new. In this paper,
https://thesai.org/Downloads/Volume5No5/Paper_31-A_fast_cryptosystem_using_reversible_cellular_automata.pdf,
the rule itself is used as the key for the encryption-decryption system (and thus nearly any rule is chaotic enough to be suitable for cryptographic purposes), and the efficiency of this cryptosystem is on par with the AES. Reversible cellular automata have the reversible computing advantage that the bits are not far from each other, and thus these RCO-POW problems will be suitable for mechanical nano-computers (mechanical nano-computers may be a good idea after all http://www.imm.org/Reports/rep046.pdf), and reversible quantum dot cellular automata. You can simulate the 2D reversible cellular automata that I am considering on this site https://dmishin.github.io/js-revca/index.html.

The other randomizing permutations f that I have in mind pretty much consist of circuits of randomly placed Toffoli, Fredkin, NOT, and CNOT gates.

It usually takes several years to evaluate the security of a cryptosystem and these cryptosystems sometimes get broken even after they have been approved (for example the hash functions MD2,MD4,MD5,SHA-1 are broken. Unfortunately, I would like to get this POW problem launched as soon as possible, so these RCO-POW problems will not be as rigorously tested before launch as AES or other cryptosystems. However, I have a couple solutions that will ensure security even though these problems have not gone through rigorous tests.

My first solution is to obtain security is what I would like to call "security-through-overkill." With security through overkill, I will simply be conservative about the security of the cryptosystem in the sense that I will include more rounds that are typically used for symmetric cryptosystems.

My second solution is to use the cryptocurrency itself to test the security of the POW problem and to calibrate its level of security automatically. My idea is to have two versions of the POW problem in the cryptocurrency. The first version of the POW problem will be the POW problem with its full security (in my case, I would need to use 3n rounds for full security) and the second version of the POW problem will be a version of the POW problem with weakened security (in this case, I will just use n rounds). The solution to 9/10 blocks will be the solution to the POW problem with full security while the solution to 1/10 blocks will be the solution to the POW problem with weakened security. The number of rounds in the weakened POW problem will increase if they are broken too quickly.

Keep in mind that the level of security required for a cryptocurrency POW problem is much less than the level of security required for hash functions and symmetric cryptosystems since one is usually given a couple minutes to break an instance of a cryptocurrency POW problem while an entity has an unlimited amount of time to break hash functions or versions of symmetric encryption. Also, the symmetric cryptosystems need to satisfy more stringent requirements since symmetric cryptography requires one to use a secret key while my RCO-POW systems require no such key. The main reason why symmetric cryptosystems need years of testing is that symmetric cryptosystems must be as secure and efficient and secure as possible and security and efficiency are opposing requirements. RCO-POW systems need to be efficient, but the efficiency of RCO-POW problems is not as crucial as it is for symmetric encryption-decryption systems or for cryptographic hash functions.

An RCO-POW problem will not be ASIC resistant. I want to construct problems which are as easy to solve as possible using future reversible computing devices, but ASIC resistant problems are meant to be difficult to solve using specialized devices. Since reversible computing devices can be thought of as ASICs, RCO-POW problems are by definition not ASIC-resistant. The closest thing that I can think of to an ASIC resistant RCO-POW problem is a problem that randomly reconfigures itself over time.

My proposed solution to the centralization problem is to use several different kinds of proof-of-work problems in order to maximize security. I am looking into using several kinds of RCO-POW problems where the reversible devices to solving each of these problems will need to have radically different designs. Another thing that one can do is to use RCO-POW problems together with ASIC resistant problems in order to maximize decentralization so that the neither the ASIC/RCO entities nor the GPU/CPU entities will control a majority of the mining power.

[grape_tectonics]

AFAIK reversible computing is basically about minimizing changes(ever change costs!) from one operation to the next, state reversibility just happens to go hand in hand with the most efficient way to do it. I can't imagine how you'd translate such a low level problem to a very high level environment like computer software without losing the benefit incentive though.

[jvanname]

Reversibility simply means that the outputs can always be recovered from the inputs simply by running the program in reverse. There are currently some reversible programming languages. For example, the programming language Janus is a high-level time reversible programming language, and you can play with Janus here http://topps.diku.dk/pirc/?id=janus. I also found the reversible programming language KAYAK. Right now, the only reversible programming languages are just-for-fun and purely-academic ones, but once reversible computers come into existence, I expect for many reversible programming languages or at least partially reversible programming languages to arise.

[loremipsum]

Reversibility simply means that the outputs can always be recovered from the inputs simply by running the program in reverse. There are currently some reversible programming languages. For example, the programming language Janus is a high-level time reversible programming language, and you can play with Janus here http://topps.diku.dk/pirc/?id=janus. I also found the reversible programming language KAYAK. Right now, the only reversible programming languages are just-for-fun and purely-academic ones, but once reversible computers come into existence, I expect for many reversible programming languages or at least partially reversible programming languages to arise.

It will take a long time to write a new RCO-POW algo from scratch I guess. I'm not a developer but let me know if there are other ways I can help you set it up. Its a great idea if it works!

[jvanname]

Reversibility simply means that the outputs can always be recovered from the inputs simply by running the program in reverse. There are currently some reversible programming languages. For example, the programming language Janus is a high-level time reversible programming language, and you can play with Janus here http://topps.diku.dk/pirc/?id=janus. I also found the reversible programming language KAYAK. Right now, the only reversible programming languages are just-for-fun and purely-academic ones, but once reversible computers come into existence, I expect for many reversible programming languages or at least partially reversible programming languages to arise.

It will take a long time to write a new RCO-POW algo from scratch I guess. I'm not a developer but let me know if there are other ways I can help you set it up. Its a great idea if it works!

Right now I have half-way written the program in C for the reversible functions f for the RCO-POW algorithm which I call R5, and I am writing the whitepaper describing R5 and a draft should be out in a week or so. After I am done with the paper and initial design for R5, I think that the best course of action would be to seek corporate investment for R5 if possible. Computational device manufacturing corporations should be willing to invest in R5 (their return on investment will be that they will get to sell reversible computing devices to miners) or a variant thereof in order to eventually develop reversible computational devices.

I am not too concerned about initially setting up the R5 RCO-POW algorithm, but I am more concerned about how well RCO-POW problems will thrive in the cryptocurrency community in the long-term. Since efficient reversible computers do not currently exist on the market, these reversible devices are probably very difficult and very expensive to construct especially as one eventually wants reversible computers whose efficiency in practice exceeds Landauer's limit. The use of RCO-POW problems will therefore only be effective if the market for RCO-POW cryptocurrencies is large enough to cover the R-D costs of initially developing these reversible devices.

Any way that you or anyone else can help get R5 or any other RCO-POW algorithm a modest corporate investment would be great (I am quite new to cryptocurrencies so I am just taking things one step at a time and hoping I am taking the right steps).

I will post an update once I get the whitepaper for R5 out.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.
boolesrings.org/jvanname

[loremipsum]

Reversibility simply means that the outputs can always be recovered from the inputs simply by running the program in reverse. There are currently some reversible programming languages. For example, the programming language Janus is a high-level time reversible programming language, and you can play with Janus here http://topps.diku.dk/pirc/?id=janus. I also found the reversible programming language KAYAK. Right now, the only reversible programming languages are just-for-fun and purely-academic ones, but once reversible computers come into existence, I expect for many reversible programming languages or at least partially reversible programming languages to arise.

It will take a long time to write a new RCO-POW algo from scratch I guess. I'm not a developer but let me know if there are other ways I can help you set it up. Its a great idea if it works!

Right now I have half-way written the program in C for the reversible functions f for the RCO-POW algorithm which I call R5, and I am writing the whitepaper describing R5 and a draft should be out in a week or so. After I am done with the paper and initial design for R5, I think that the best course of action would be to seek corporate investment for R5 if possible. Computational device manufacturing corporations should be willing to invest in R5 (their return on investment will be that they will get to sell reversible computing devices to miners) or a variant thereof in order to eventually develop reversible computational devices.

I am not too concerned about initially setting up the R5 RCO-POW algorithm, but I am more concerned about how well RCO-POW problems will thrive in the cryptocurrency community in the long-term. Since efficient reversible computers do not currently exist on the market, these reversible devices are probably very difficult and very expensive to construct especially as one eventually wants reversible computers whose efficiency in practice exceeds Landauer's limit. The use of RCO-POW problems will therefore only be effective if the market for RCO-POW cryptocurrencies is large enough to cover the R-D costs of initially developing these reversible devices.

Any way that you or anyone else can help get R5 or any other RCO-POW algorithm a modest corporate investment would be great (I am quite new to cryptocurrencies so I am just taking things one step at a time and hoping I am taking the right steps).

I will post an update once I get the whitepaper for R5 out.

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.
boolesrings.org/jvanname

Im not sure I understand this. Would mining using the R5 algorithm be possible only on reversible computers or on any CPU/GPU? Is the idea to offer a mining advantage on running the algorithm on reversible devices or to have it ran solely on these?

Also, why seek corporate investment? I think a lot of people in this community won't like that. If there is a mining advantage in using an RCO device, at some point, if the coin marketcap is big enough, an RCO device will be generated.

[jvanname]

The idea behind RCO-POWs is to give a mining advantage to the reversible devices which do not exist yet so that businesses manufacture reversible devices without having to make their reversible devices so efficient as to compensate for the overhead that comes with reversible computation. Even though these problems are meant to be solved by reversible devices, one could still solve these problems using CPUs/GPUs. Since reversible computers currently do not exist, the mining advantage will go to the conventional ASICs once they get built (one of the five problems in R5 is a problem that changes every year and the other problem changes slightly every new block so these problems will be slightly ASIC resistant) and then only when reversible devices come into existence will the advantage go to reversible devices. Here is the hierarchy of computational devices for solving R5 or more generally for any RCO-POW problem that I can imagine.

CPU<GPU<FPGA<conventional irreversible ASIC<future reversible devices

I suggested corporate investment since it seems like one of the ways that such a project could be funded. I will only accept corporate investment only from corporations who are interested in manufacturing reversible devices though (and I will never accept a corporate investment from Google or Microsoft because Google and Microsoft spread lies and slander people. Yes. I have a personal grudge against Google and Microsoft and I hope they both go under as soon as possible). These corporations such as IBM have the greatest incentive to ensure the endurance of RCO-POW problems so that they can eventually manufacture and sell these devices. What other way besides corporate investment of obtaining funding is suitable for RCO-POW problems?

-Joseph Van Name

[loremipsum]

I suggested corporate investment since it seems like one of the ways that such a project could be funded. I will only accept corporate investment only from corporations who are interested in manufacturing reversible devices though (and I will never accept a corporate investment from Google or Microsoft because Google and Microsoft spread lies and slander people. Yes. I have a personal grudge against Google and Microsoft and I hope they both go under as soon as possible). These corporations such as IBM have the greatest incentive to ensure the endurance of RCO-POW problems so that they can eventually manufacture and sell these devices. What other way besides corporate investment of obtaining funding is suitable for RCO-POW problems?
-Joseph Van Name

How do you think a corporation can be involved in this project? I mean, the coin has to launch first, people need to start mining it and the security of the RCO-POW algorithm has to be tested. At which point can a corporation be involved in this?

My thinking is that there are 2 options:

1) You can launch the coin as most POW coins launch ie. launch it and market it as a new coin that has a novel POW algorithm. You can keep a certain premine for your work and also bounties for promotion. It can be a successful coin, as it will have a novel POW algo that gives incentives for RCO mining. If you set the other parameters well, like block rewards, difficulty algo and other features (for example masternodes) it can easily be successful. Only after the coin's marketcap has grown a lot, will a company be interested in developing a reversible asic.

2) You can do an ICO. This is very weird for a POW coin but this case is different. You can use the ICO money to fund the development of a reversible asic. The problem is how to convince people to fund your ICO, as they will not get any immediate returns.

What is the budget we are talking about for research & development of an RCO device?

[David Rabahy]

Any digital circuit can be made reversible using components like the Fredkin and Toffoli gates.  This includes SHA-256.  As much fun as it would be, there is no fundamental need to develop a new algorithm for the Bitcoin PoW.  It would truly be interesting to engineer a reversible SHA-256 computing device and see how it compares in speed vs. energy consumption against the current generation of non-reversible ASICs.  In practice only the hottest portions of the circuit benefit from being made reversible.  A hybrid circuit of both reversible and non-reversible sections is likely to be the one that gives the best trade-off of speed and efficiency.

[Ayers]

Any digital circuit can be made reversible using components like the Fredkin and Toffoli gates.  This includes SHA-256.  As much fun as it would be, there is no fundamental need to develop a new algorithm for the Bitcoin PoW.  It would truly be interesting to engineer a reversible SHA-256 computing device and see how it compares in speed vs. energy consumption against the current generation of non-reversible ASICs.  In practice only the hottest portions of the circuit benefit from being made reversible.  A hybrid circuit of both reversible and non-reversible sections is likely to be the one that gives the best trade-off of speed and efficiency.

yeah but if they are using private chip like for example in the baikal miners, you can-t get anything out of reverse engineering which is the same as recersible computer to me, you can build the board and anything but the chip is what matter

[David Rabahy]

Any digital circuit can be made reversible using components like the Fredkin and Toffoli gates.  This includes SHA-256.  As much fun as it would be, there is no fundamental need to develop a new algorithm for the Bitcoin PoW.  It would truly be interesting to engineer a reversible SHA-256 computing device and see how it compares in speed vs. energy consumption against the current generation of non-reversible ASICs.  In practice only the hottest portions of the circuit benefit from being made reversible.  A hybrid circuit of both reversible and non-reversible sections is likely to be the one that gives the best trade-off of speed and efficiency.

yeah but if they are using private chip like for example in the baikal miners, you can-t get anything out of reverse engineering which is the same as recersible computer to me, you can build the board and anything but the chip is what matter

Hmm, it appears there's been a misunderstanding.  Reverse engineering and reversible computing are very different things.  One cannot take a non-reversible device and add something around it to make it reversible.  One must reengineer a circuit from the gates on the chips up to make it reversible.

[jvanname]

loremipsum-I think that the cost of developing and mass producing an RCO-POW device will probably be hundreds of millions of dollars or even billions of dollars. However, since we do not have reversible computing devices, we do not know what technologies will be best for constructing reversible computing devices, and because I am a mathematician and not an engineer, I am unable to make an accurate estimate about how much it will cost to mass produce this future technology. Let me quote Mike Frank at https://intelligence.org/2014/01/31/mike-frank-on-reversible-computing/ about the difficulty of manufacturing a reversible computing device whose efficiency surpasses Landauer's limit.

. . .But to actually realize practical, high-quality, high-performance, cost-efficient reversible computing below the Landauer limit is, I would say, one of the most difficult, hard-core engineering challenges of our time. That’s not to say it’s impossible; indeed, there has never been any valid proof from fundamental physics that it’s impossible, and to the contrary, there are many indications, from the research that’s been done to date, that suggest that it will probably be possible to achieve eventually. But it’s certainly not an easy thing to accomplish, given the state of engineering know-how at this point in time. A future computer technology that actually achieves high-quality, efficient reversible computing will require a level of device engineering that’s so precise and sophisticated that it will make today’s top-of-the-line device technologies seem as crude in comparison, to future eyes, as the practice of chiseling stone tablets looks to us today.

It will only be practical to develop these reversible devices if RCO-POW problems take up a significant share of the cryptocurrency mining market. Of course, we do not need to make reversible devices that go beyond Landauer's limit just yet to mine cryptocurrencies. We currently only need to develop reversible devices which are more efficient than conventional devices in order to solve these RCO-POW problems.

I am not worried at all about the cryptographic security of RCO-POW problems since these problems can be made just as secure as SHA-256 simply by adding more rounds to the reversible circuit. Of course, there is always the threat of a 51 percent attack, but the use of 5 different algorithms in the POW will provide the decentralization needed to thwart 51 percent attacks. I currently do not have any funding to develop a cryptocurrency with an RCO-POW problem so I will need a modest amount of funding to launch the cryptocurrency in the first place. Even if I use an ICO, I will definitely need funding to set up the ICO in the first place.

David Rabahy-While all algorithms including SHA-256 can be made reversible, it in general takes more steps to run a computation reversibly than it takes to run the computation irreversibly. Furthermore, after one is done computing SHA-256, one produces much garbage information. In order to clean this information, one either has to uncompute or delete the garbage information (and deleting garbage information after computation defeats the purpose of reversible computation in the first place). I want an RCO-POW problem for cryptocurrencies since these problems will make it as easy as possible for reversible devices to solve. If it is not easy for a reversible device to solve a POW problem, then it is unlikely that such a reversible device will be developed in the first place for a very long time.

A possible problem with using a hybrid of reversibility and irreversiblity is that it may be difficult to make reversible technologies compatible with conventional computing technologies (since reversible computers do not exist, we do not know what technologies will be used to make reversible devices and these technologies could be anything from adiabatic circuits to quantum dot cellular automata to even nano-mechanical devices). Cryptocurrency POW problems should be used to advance new technologies instead of stockpiling current technologies and burning energy.

I do not think an established cryptocurrency like Bitcoin would want to change its POW to an RCO-POW until other cryptocurrencies are using RCO-POW problems.

Joseph Van Name Ph.D.
boolesrings.org/jvanname

[David Rabahy]

A reversible-friendly algorithm, e.g. not SHA-256, might always be simple to implement irreversibly and achieve both better speed and reasonable energy consumption.

[jvanname]

Reversible computation is more difficult than conventional computation since it usually takes more steps to compute something reversibly than it takes to compute it on a conventional machine. The algorithms in the RCO-POW problem R5 that I have in mind are lightweight and they can be computed about as efficiently as a standard cryptographic hash function. However, it takes just as many steps for a reversible device to compute R5 as it takes for a conventional device to compute R5. Therefore even if a reversible device were only 10% more efficient than a conventional device for solving R5, one would still prefer to use a reversible device for solving R5 since R5 does not give you any computational overhead when you solve it with a reversible device. Remember that the energy efficiency of conventional computing is limited by Landauer's principle and that we are beginning to see the effects of Landauer's principle as Moore's law is now coming to an end. The energy efficiency of reversible computation on the other hand is not limited by Landauer's principle (we will hit Landauer's limit in the 2030's so it is now necessary to start producing reversible computing devices).

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.
boolesrings.org/jvanname

[loremipsum]

I am not worried at all about the cryptographic security of RCO-POW problems since these problems can be made just as secure as SHA-256 simply by adding more rounds to the reversible circuit. Of course, there is always the threat of a 51 percent attack, but the use of 5 different algorithms in the POW will provide the decentralization needed to thwart 51 percent attacks. I currently do not have any funding to develop a cryptocurrency with an RCO-POW problem so I will need a modest amount of funding to launch the cryptocurrency in the first place. Even if I use an ICO, I will definitely need funding to set up the ICO in the first place.
boolesrings.org/jvanname

What funding would you need? If you are close to finishing the design of the algorithm, you can simply launch the currency and see how it goes.

[jvanname]

I can probably launch the cryptocurrency without funding as well and hope that it does not flop. My concern is that if the cryptocurrency is funded through an ICO or through some other method, I can get advertising for the cryptocurrency, and the ICO (or other funding method) will give the cryptocurrency a positive initial market cap. Furthermore, funding can help with the early-stage development. But if you insist, I can probably just launch the cryptocurrency without funding and let it grow organically (and hope nobody attacks it when it still has a low market cap).

So out of all cryptocurrencies, it seems to me like Dash has the best model of governance, funding, ease-of-use, etc so I will probably just take Dash's source code and modify the POW to incorporate R5 as its POW.

[loremipsum]

I can probably launch the cryptocurrency without funding as well and hope that it does not flop. My concern is that if the cryptocurrency is funded through an ICO or through some other method, I can get advertising for the cryptocurrency, and the ICO (or other funding method) will give the cryptocurrency a positive initial market cap. Furthermore, funding can help with the early-stage development. But if you insist, I can probably just launch the cryptocurrency without funding and let it grow organically (and hope nobody attacks it when it still has a low market cap).

So out of all cryptocurrencies, it seems to me like Dash has the best model of governance, funding, ease-of-use, etc so I will probably just take Dash's source code and modify the POW to incorporate R5 as its POW.

You can setup a small premine, and use it to fund development and maybe setup a bounty campaign as well. I think the most important part is to make enough people aware of the coin launch, so that it is a fair launch and people will have an incentive to mine.

How will this R5 algorithm be mineable? I mean, apart from the RCO advantage, will it be mined with GPU/CPU?