"Proof of Human" Coin ?

[fortunecrypto]

Nope. Captchas wont work either.
Have you seen mrai? Where they pay people to solve captchas and gain raiblocks.
How could that be different with that?
Even if they pay low some people will bite here specially to those who are looking for a job even if they pay low.

This is actually what is happening now in Mrai people are accepting low fee for solving captchas because this is easy and fast money and mrai is such a popular coin today that it is profitable and easy to invite newbies to participate to mine this coin.

[1714830898]

1714830898

[1714830898]

1714830898

[achillez]

Great that this thread is still alive. Ideally a "proof of human" coin would do useful work. Starting with captcha is ok, but what if it could be applied to learning, or perhaps analysis to help society. That would be the best proof of human algorithm.

[aventus]

I saw a project a while back working on this in the Ethereum Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4aoavy/two_new_components_for_the_proofofindividuality/. They were trying to use Google hangouts to give people a proof of identity token. However, I think things like UPort (https://www.uport.me/) on Ethereum are solving this problem in a different way, by associating addresses with human information. E.g. you can add your address, or some of your IoT data to a given address, and let Dapps request that information from you (and regulate who gets to see what).

[TeamMollyMassive]

OK guys i am deeply interested in this right now. '

If a coin or coins were only able to enter the circulating supply by a HUMAN solving some sort of puzzle unsolvable by a computer alone does this constitute as a PROOF OF HUMAN coin? or is this a PUZZLECOIN?

here is another point of view.


Say there are coins being MINED using something similar to Proof of Stake (proof of stake would not work properly in my opinion but this is just an example) and transaction ledger is being built. The transactions happen just the same as any coin with a user, and a wallet, and a private key.

HOWEVER!!!

The new coins that are being created are locked! The private key to each one of these coins is not available. Once a human comes into the picture and solves a series of puzzles proving that the USER is IN FACT a HUMAN the final puzzle would reveal a key that would decrypt address/location that the new coins were created are in. This is how coins would enter into circulation. From then on they would function as a normal crypto.



Which one of these examples constitutes a TRUE  proof of human coin? Are they both proof of human?



If they are? How would you implement these puzzles?


please serious discussion I am really into this. There are tons of resources about this out there from cryptographer even before true crypto.

can someone here please give me a response to my questions? on page 2? Do any of these scenarios constitute a proof of human coin?

[PeterTheGrape]

...

can someone here please give me a response to my questions? on page 2? Do any of these scenarios constitute a proof of human coin?

It's important to notice that there are different kinds of ways to require human input, and that a big factor is the motive behind the coin.

As with any technology, a person wants maximum benefit and minimum damage.

The best way to implement "proof of human" to start is in a coin that has severe limitations, like if you invent a gun, first give it to somebody who can't hear or see too well. Huntercoin took a lot of the big steps in developing the human idea, but the game that the coin uses is something nobody wants to play, the cost to play is prohibitive etc. But if you are interested in how that tech should be developed, look at huc and its devs who are not as mercenary as most.

[CryptoMensch]

"Nature find its way". I think is the same with Humans and Technology. People always find a way to take advantage and gain profit from a "software"/technology
Examples:

• Forced labor: Prisoners forced to play WOW to gain gold and equip. Then it would be sold for dollars
• Scientifics and students using AI to solve capchas
• People using apps to fake GPS coordinates to capture pokemons
• Cheap labor: have x numbers of phone, pay someone to give 5 stars to certain app in all the x phones. Then you can sell 5 starts reviews
• Twitter bots / followers
• Etc...

[PeterTheGrape]

"Nature find its way". I think is the same with Humans and Technology. People always find a way to take advantage and gain profit from a "software"/technology
Examples:

• Forced labor: Prisoners forced to play WOW to gain gold and equip. Then it would be sold for dollars
• Scientifics and students using AI to solve capchas
• People using apps to fake GPS coordinates to capture pokemons
• Cheap labor: have x numbers of phone, pay someone to give 5 stars to certain app in all the x phones. Then you can sell 5 starts reviews
• Twitter bots / followers
• Etc...

Yes, it's true, but a person can either support poor judgment or discourage it. The sharpest minds never favor abuses like those, and it's a part of nature that bad shortcuts don't work for long.

[stomachgrowls]

I've been thinking about the issues with bitcoins, altcoins, etc.. The biggest problem seems to be that people with huge mining rigs (or botnets) come in and take all the coins while the difficulty is low.

I propose a new coin that adds on the goodness from other coins: CPU mining, Scrypt, etc.. requiring a CPU + GPU to do effective mining. Further it extends this to also require a "PoH" analysis to confirm each coin. The PoH can use captcha, or another mechanism to verify that a human did some work to confirm each coin. This would slow down the mining by large farms, and make human input and analysis relevant. Further, the human  analysis could be interesting and educational at the same time. So a miner gets the value of generating a coin + the challenge of answering an analysis question.

What do folks think? Would this work?

Good idea but a little bit complicated when you tried to enforce it on making such changes.We cant do anything since there are companies,people do have an advantage as of now when a certain coin pops-out they can easily mine and accumulate as they can since they have the capability and thinking off on human interactions it will surely slow up the rise of difficulty but those whose on the top wont really agree on this thing for sure.

[Spoetnik]

I posted a poll in off-topic with the same name  
I asked if people thought captcha's proved you were human.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1827611.0

Captcha coin ?

[CoinHoarder]

Instead of annoying captchas couldn't you instead design the coin so that everyone mines at the same speed regardless of hardware? Instamining wouldn't be a problem and there would be no huge dumps from mining farms when the coins hits an exchange, leading to a stable exchange rate. You could have random special blocks worth 2-3 times the normal block reward to keep people mining. I think a coin designed this way would function well as a currency. If I had any coding skills I'd try making a coin around this idea as an experiment.

Impossible due to Sybil. Someone who makes 1,000,000 accounts will mine faster than an honest person who has 1 account.

Captchas are not good either. Most captchas can be broken by algorithms. Even if you do manage to make a bullet proof captcha, people living in the poorest parts of the world will always have an advantage over people who don't because they are willing to work for much less. Then investing or buying the cryptocurrenct is effectively an overly complicated charity. There are better, easier, and less complex ways to donate to charities.

Unless the whole concept of your cryptocurrency is redistribution of wealth... but even still, you would need people to buy the cryptocurrency to do so, and just like real life- only a portion of people will give a portion of their wealth to charities. Nothing really changes in that sense.

There are many Captcha farms... for instance, solve 1000 Captchas and get $0.97 USD here: https://2captcha.com/

...
HUMAN solving some sort of puzzle unsolvable by a computer
...
solves a series of puzzles proving that the USER is IN FACT a HUMAN ...

These are the weak links of your idea. There are no puzzles that humans can solve that an algorithm can't.

---------------

Biometrics may not even be feasible.

There is no scientific evidence that no two fingerprints are the same. It can only be quantified as being unlikely, as it is impossible to examine the fingerprints of every human alive. Furthermore, no two fingerprints from the same person are exactly the same due to inconsistencies in the way they are scanned/imprinted which can cause fingerprints from the same person to go unmatched. (A nice video from a  good TV show if you like to learn stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM1QgwaKv4s)

DNA fingerprinting is not reliable either. Generally, a certain amount of locations of chromosomes (loci) are used to determine DNA matches. As the number of people in a DNA fingerprint database grows, the more likely it is for collisions to occur. http://freakonomics.com/2008/08/19/are-the-fbis-probabilities-about-dna-matches-crazy/

Furthermore, someone can simply sell their DNA fingerprint to someone else. Therefore, the rich end up with the same advantages they have in PoW and PoS algorithms. Even if you created hardware specifically for a cryptocurrency to scan someone's DNA to confirm it is a certain person, the hardware can still be hacked to produce false positives.

----------

I too am interested in solving this problem, but I have done plenty of research into it in the past few years and came up with no solutions. There may yet still be a solution, but it will not be easy to conceive it.

[PeterTheGrape]

... people living in the poorest parts of the world will always have an advantage over people who don't because they are willing to work for much less. Then investing or buying the cryptocurrenct is effectively an overly complicated charity. There are better, easier, and less complex ways to donate to charities.

...

Wait a minute. When a poor person mines with actual work, they are receiving "charity", but when a rich person mines using hardware while they are actually doing something else, it is "work"?

[CoinHoarder]

Wait a minute. When a poor person mines with actual work, they are receiving "charity", but when a rich person mines using hardware while they are actually doing something else, it is "work"?

Lol. I never said that exactly. I hate ASICs for opposite reasons, and prefer CPU/GPU mined coins since they are an equilibrium of the two extremes.

All methods of PoW/PoS are different.

Investing in an ASIC mined coin is effectively agreeing to the rich taxing the poor and the middle class. The reward is incentive enough for all to participate, but the rich receive massive efficiency boosts due to the economies of scale ASICs bring and the high costs associated with their development.

CPU/GPU mining is a decent equilibrium between the two extremes. The rewards are also incentive enough for everyone to participate, but the rich receive no benefit on the efficiency of the PoW because GPUs/CPUs cost them the same amount of money as they cost a poor person. Yet, there is no such thing as an ASIC-proof coin, and these too will eventually be mined by ASICs if the risk/reward is enough for it to become economically feasible. So, although these coins start out more fair, just like Bitcoin/Litecoin did, they end with the rich taxing the poor and middle class too.

I stand by my reasoning that investing in a Captcha PoW mined coin is effectively giving to charity, as the reward for the PoW is only big enough for the poorest of people to participate. It is the opposite of ASIC mined coins... instead of the rich taxing the poor, the poor tax the middle class and the rich, because the poor receive the lionshare of the inflation/transaction fees.

PoS and all of its variants end up with the rich taxing the poor too. With the PoS coins that pay X percent per annum for staked coins, the rich tax the poor more and more over time due to compounding interest when the rich reinvest their earnings. They become more and more likely over time to find the next block and process transactions. Especially considering the rich don't need the money or earnings, whereas the poor and middle class are less likely to reinvest the interest, or may even have to withdrawal it all at times due to unforeseen circumstances. dPoS also suffers from the rich taxing the poor, as with dPoS the rich have more voting power which they can use to vote in their own witnesses/delegates to process transactions and receive newly minted coins.

The bolded is why I am interested in alternative consensus algorithms. PoS/PoW and all of their variants are great experiments that are much needed by the cryptocurrency community, because all forms of currently existing PoW/PoS consensus algorithms are broken in one way or another (with many other issues other than this issue alone). Every consensus mechanism has its pros and its cons, and there are no perfect ones whether it be a PoW or PoS variant. There are tradeoffs with all PoS and PoW variants. However, I believe that by continuing to experiment with and brainstorming new consensus algorithms, that we will continue to improve upon currently existing consensus algorithms. Ideally, an improved consensus algorithm would benefit everyone equally- the rich, the poor, and the middle class. It is just a very complicated problem to solve.

[Spoetnik]

All of crypto is about "redistribution of wealth"
None of these "coins" are being created out of thin air..

BUY into an ICO lately ?

Kind of funny how you'd need to have money that is used to buy some other money that replaces the first money no ? ROFL

[TeamMollyMassive]

What about a coin that before it enters circulation. The key to the coin or coins location after being mined is held on a uncrackable and encrypted database that terminates itself after a HUMAN solves a sequence of steps and puzzles to prove the USER is a human? The inputs to access this database would be sanitized properly and the "Keys" stored in this database would be stored as a Salted Hash until a human properly retrieved it. If malicious code was injected into the database and ANYTHING was retrieved. Not only would the attacker receive a Salted Hash but the database would know something was pulled from it and Purge itself, since it only stores the single Salted hash anyways. The attacker would be left with a Salted Hash to try and crack to gain access to the key witch would make them feel stupid because its a HELL of a lot easier to just prove you are human. Of course to implement this you would need hundreds of thousands of databases and thousands more being created daily by a decentralized service. So this is all in theory at this point.

[PeterTheGrape]

...
I stand by my reasoning that investing in a Captcha PoW mined coin is effectively giving to charity, as the reward for the PoW is only big enough for the poorest of people to participate. It is the opposite of ASIC mined coins... instead of the rich taxing the poor, the poor tax the middle class and the rich, because the poor receive the lionshare of the inflation/transaction fees.

...

Specifically solving capchas is a wasteful use of labor, of course, but maybe somebody will develop a proof of work algorithm involving a science coin that requires intellectual input, some decision made by a human, in order to constantly sharpen the algorithm.

Regarding "effectively giving to charity", I think your view is a bit skewed. You use the context of "taxes" and "charity" to give the appearance of more legitimacy to coins that favor the wealthy.

[CoinHoarder]

Regarding "effectively giving to charity", I think your view is a bit skewed. You use the context of "taxes" and "charity" to give the appearance of more legitimacy to coins that favor the wealthy.

I thought I was fairly objective, or at least I meant to be. To be clear, I hate BOTH being taxed by the poor AND being taxed by the rich.

EDIT: To be even more clear- I hate taxes in general because they are generally spent on things I disagree with, shadily pocketed by some individual or corporation, or spent wastefully.

[PeterTheGrape]

Regarding "effectively giving to charity", I think your view is a bit skewed. You use the context of "taxes" and "charity" to give the appearance of more legitimacy to coins that favor the wealthy.

I thought I was fairly objective, or at least I meant to be. To be clear, I hate BOTH being taxed by the poor AND being taxed by the rich.

Fair enough, but in a global economy you are not the only participant.

[TeamMollyMassive]

...
HUMAN solving some sort of puzzle unsolvable by a computer
...
solves a series of puzzles proving that the USER is IN FACT a HUMAN ...

These are the weak links of your idea. There are no puzzles that humans can solve that an algorithm can't.

---------------

There are puzzles that a computer cant solve. Steganographic and cryptographic puzzles are a good place to start. Also there is a chess puzzle that a computer can not solve http://mashable.com/2017/03/14/solve-this-chess-puzzle/#xsRzI9xYgiq3

There is also a way to make a Human prove they are a human before they even have access to the puzzle

[CoinHoarder]

There are puzzles that a computer cant solve. Steganographic and cryptographic puzzles are a good place to start. Also there is a chess puzzle that a computer can not solve http://mashable.com/2017/03/14/solve-this-chess-puzzle/#xsRzI9xYgiq3

Could you explain how steganographic/cryptographic could be made to be immune from algorithms?

One immune puzzle will not work, as it would be easy to program the solution to that single puzzle into a bot's logic.

There is also a way to make a Human prove they are a human before they even have access to the puzzle

via ReCaptcha? It is not immune to computer algorithms either... Google shows numerous instances of research showing it being breakable.
via captchas? Plenty of literature showing they are even less immune than reCaptcha...

[jorenpo]

solving captcha is a bad idea i guess