Making PoW usefull

[ArticMine]

No thanks.

... Those who wish to bet against the laws of Physics or the laws of Mathematics with their money are of course free to do so. I will pass and stick to POW coins.

[username18333]

No thanks.

... Those who wish to bet against the laws of Physics or the laws of Mathematics with their money are of course free to do so. I will pass and stick to POW coins.

To what do you object? There is still hashing. (That's how the Merkle roots are produced.)

[ArticMine]

No thanks.

... Those who wish to bet against the laws of Physics or the laws of Mathematics with their money are of course free to do so. I will pass and stick to POW coins.

To what do you object? There is still hashing. (That's how the Merkle roots are produced.)

So it is a POW coin after all?

[username18333]

No thanks.

... Those who wish to bet against the laws of Physics or the laws of Mathematics with their money are of course free to do so. I will pass and stick to POW coins.

To what do you object? There is still hashing. (That's how the Merkle roots are produced.)

So it is a POW coin after all?

It takes about six seconds for transactions to fully propagate across these networks, so some will have different transactions in their blocks. The miner or miners that happens to have the right combination of transactions produces an acceptable Merkle root first. That and the lack of block rewards helps to keeps the system heterarchical.

[ArticMine]

No thanks.

... Those who wish to bet against the laws of Physics or the laws of Mathematics with their money are of course free to do so. I will pass and stick to POW coins.

To what do you object? There is still hashing. (That's how the Merkle roots are produced.)

So it is a POW coin after all?

It takes about six seconds for transactions to fully propagate across these networks, so some will have different transactions in their blocks. The miner or miners that happens to have the right combination of transactions produces an acceptable Merkle root first. That and the lack of block rewards helps to keeps the system heterarchical.

It seemed to me that this would, for starters, favour whoever has the best worldwide Internet peering. This would lead to centralized control.

[username18333]

No thanks.

... Those who wish to bet against the laws of Physics or the laws of Mathematics with their money are of course free to do so. I will pass and stick to POW coins.

To what do you object? There is still hashing. (That's how the Merkle roots are produced.)

So it is a POW coin after all?

It takes about six seconds for transactions to fully propagate across these networks, so some will have different transactions in their blocks. The miner or miners that happens to have the right combination of transactions produces an acceptable Merkle root first. That and the lack of block rewards helps to keeps the system heterarchical.

It seemed to me that this would, for starters, favour whoever has the best worldwide Internet peering. This would lead to centralized control.

To the exclusion of transactions? (Remember, new coins are “minted” [i.e., generated via “out-of-block” coinbase transactions], not mined.)

[ArticMine]

Not for me

[username18333]

Not for me

Are you looking for a variation on proof-of-work? As we established, most people aren't going to accept your value proposition as valid. (They're trying to turn the thermostat down---not up.)

[ArticMine]

Please let us stay on topic which is making POW useful rather attempting to promote yet another alt-coin.

[fenghush]

Please let us stay on topic which is making POW useful rather attempting to promote yet another alt-coin.

Rather than automate the process for proof of work, why not work on a way to verify actual human work done and credit virtual coins accordingly, like for example data entry jobs, people announce job offering on the blockchain and deposit x amount of coins to do x amount of work by anyone, workers then fetch the job file and start to organize the data on the blockchain, I can see right away that verification would be a pain and cheating would be possible, automation of course could be done giving technical people some edge, but then again that would be the fault of the job offerer for not automating the job himself, but it's just something to ponder about.

[ArticMine]

There is a very important requirement here that is often overlooked. The purpose of proof of work is to enforce decentralization of the network. If the added value work that is performed can be equally performed in a centralized or decentralized fashion then doing useful work actually defeats the use of proof of work for blockchain security. Common examples that are used are distributed computing for example to solve medical problems. The trouble with this, is that this kind of computing can just as well be performed in a centralized location. If the work has value then this defeats the whole point of proof of work.

The idea is to find an application that only has value if it is performed in a decentralized way. In my example the use of electricity to produce heat is a very good example. This has value in a decentralized setting, and is in fact very useful, but it is completely useless and worthless in a centralized setting. Why? Because one can transport the electricity for thousands of km but not the heat.

To consider human work. Typing a document can be done anywhere in the world and the digital document can be transmitted electronically, so this would not work. On the other hand, serving someone coffee only has value if it is done in the presence of the person served. By its very nature this kind of work has to be performed in a decentralized fashion, and could in principle be used to make proof of work useful.

[SirChewie]

Asics, perhaps not.. yet.

But I have been thinking about something similar for all those GPU mining rigs people have stashed in their closets, I mean lets face it -- alt coins introduced a ton of GPU miners early last year.

That said, there is some potential here when you look at some Deep Learning java code, that *already* runs on GPUs... If the next few weeks permit, I might make fork a coin project locally to test how a split of work would be achievable. The main issue I see with this is extending one of the miner programs (cgminer,sgminer,etc) to achieve this double work (Where something like half of cycles run the deep learning code, the other half run the network)

For reference,
https://github.com/ivan-vasilev/neuralnetworks
https://github.com/SkymindIO/nd4j

[VectorChief]

If you consider money as a universal transmitter of value, which in turn is produced by all kinds of useful work, then you will understand that work that creates money in the first place needs to be neutral (useless). In other words, your jar needs to be empty to serve as a carrier for something of value. Usefulness changes over time as market conditions develop, neutrality of uselessness stays true to itself forever.

[username18333]

If you consider money as a universal transmitter of value, which in turn is produced by all kinds of useful work, then you will understand that work that creates money in the first place needs to be neutral (useless). In other words, your jar needs to be empty to serve as a carrier for something of value. Usefulness changes over time as market conditions develop, neutrality of uselessness stays true to itself forever.

Money is not “a universal transmitter of value” (VectorChief) because it is not “universal[ly]” produced in accordance with the production of “value.”

[username18333]

. . .

The idea is to find an application that only has value if it is performed in a decentralized way. In my example the use of electricity to produce heat is a very good example. This has value in a decentralized setting, and is in fact very useful, but it is completely useless and worthless in a centralized setting. Why? Because one can transport the electricity for thousands of km but not the heat.

To consider human work. Typing a document can be done anywhere in the world and the digital document can be transmitted electronically, so this would not work. On the other hand, serving someone coffee only has value if it is done in the presence of the person served. By its very nature this kind of work has to be performed in a decentralized fashion, and could in principle be used to make proof of work useful.

1. (See the following quote, noting my red colorization.)

Electric resistance heating converts nearly 100% of the energy in the electricity to heat. However, most electricity is produced from coal, gas, or oil generators that convert only about 30% of the fuel's energy into electricity. Because of electricity generation and transmission losses, electric heat is often more expensive than heat produced in the home or business using combustion appliances, such as natural gas, propane, and oil furnaces.

. . .

2. Given that passports can be falsified, it would follow that any document representing something so trivial as “serving someone coffee” (ArcticMine) could be as well.

[VectorChief]

If you consider money as a universal transmitter of value, which in turn is produced by all kinds of useful work, then you will understand that work that creates money in the first place needs to be neutral (useless). In other words, your jar needs to be empty to serve as a carrier for something of value. Usefulness changes over time as market conditions develop, neutrality of uselessness stays true to itself forever.

Money is not “a universal transmitter of value” (VectorChief) because it is not “universal[ly]” produced in accordance with the production of “value.”

I agree that a barter system can also work, where particular items of value act as value-carriers. However, the idea of money is that it serves as a common denominator and, in that sense, becomes independent of any particular kind of value. A measure of money in a system is a presence of a universal value-carrier. I mean the word "universal" as being "independent" rather than having anything to do with the Universe .

The money system which doesn't have any central or distributed (stakeholders) authority needs to be based on some kind of neutral (useless) work in order to become an independent value-carrier. I agree that a particular item of value can also serve as a universal value-carrier (provided it satisfies certain conditions), but the money part of it will reside in its otherwise uselessness. Bitcoin is a pure form of money, that has no other use.

[username18333]

. . .

I agree that a barter system can also work, where particular items of value act as value-carriers. However, the idea of money is that it serves as a common denominator and, in that sense, becomes independent of any particular kind of value. A measure of money in a system is a presence of a universal value-carrier. I mean the word "universal" as being "independent" rather than having anything to do with the Universe .

The money system which doesn't have any central or distributed (stakeholders) authority needs to be based on some kind of neutral (useless) work in order to become an independent value-carrier. I agree that a particular item of value can also serve as a universal value-carrier (provided it satisfies certain conditions), but the money part of it will reside in its otherwise uselessness. Bitcoin is a pure form of money, that has no other use.

A proper money corresponds to differences in the “value” (VectrorChief) of one or more goods in an exchange thereof. It is this difference in “value-” (VectorChief) that money “-carr[ies]” (VectorChief).

[VectorChief]

. . .

I agree that a barter system can also work, where particular items of value act as value-carriers. However, the idea of money is that it serves as a common denominator and, in that sense, becomes independent of any particular kind of value. A measure of money in a system is a presence of a universal value-carrier. I mean the word "universal" as being "independent" rather than having anything to do with the Universe .

The money system which doesn't have any central or distributed (stakeholders) authority needs to be based on some kind of neutral (useless) work in order to become an independent value-carrier. I agree that a particular item of value can also serve as a universal value-carrier (provided it satisfies certain conditions), but the money part of it will reside in its otherwise uselessness. Bitcoin is a pure form of money, that has no other use.

A proper money corresponds to differences in the “value” (VectorChief) of one or more goods in an exchange thereof. It is this difference in “value-” (VectorChief) that money “-carr[ies]” (VectorChief).

Hmm... I'm puzzled with your response.
I usually agree with an argument or see where it's going wrong, but yours has put me back into superposition mode. You hacked VectorChief, congratulations!

So, you're basically saying that money satisfies sameness-in-difference principle, which I agree with. However, I argue, that presence of money in the system brings an "intrinsic" value of its own as being an independent value-carrier. Being able to carry value is also a kind of value as a service! Thus money gains value for simply being money. I believe Bitcoin is a representation of that idea.

I mean the word "universal" as being "independent" rather than having anything to do with the Universe .

Thinking about it more thorougly, it seems that even "independence" (as in the "independent value-carrier" which Bitcoin obviously is) wants to be "independent" of itself and in that sense it actually resembles the original structure of the Universe.

[VectorChief]

Now that I have experienced "The Singularity" (thanks to username18333's excellent remark) and momentarily become "All That Is", which in turn allowed me to sorta get "outahere" and kinda "Zoom out!" (thanks cbeast!), I'm booting back up with a sizeable core-dump of information of "How Everything Works".

In essense, the idea of "Money" as a "universal value-carrier" exists and is valid. However, the word "universal" doesn't mean that it is singular or otherwise simple thing. It actually means that "Money sub-system of the Universe" is similar in structure to the "Universe" itself, as any "self-similar" system should be. In other words, there is a whole "Universe of Money" outhere, in which Bitcoin represents the ideal pure form of it, or God, but absolute perfection isn't possible without there being a choice for something less perfect, which brings us to the idea of "value" actually being a product of the "difference". It is the "difference" that creates "value"!

Thus recognizing the differences between us all and various forms of money is what allows us to preserve value and multiply it. Thank you for being different!

[username18333]

Now that I have undergone the event of "Singularity" (thanks to username18333's excellent remark) and momentarily become "All That Is", which in turn allowed me to sorta get "outahere" and kinda "Zoom out!" (thanks cbeast!), I'm booting back up with a sizeable core-dump of information of "How Everything Works".

In essense, the idea of "Money" as a "universal value-carrier" exists and is valid. However, the word "universal" doesn't mean that it is singular or otherwise simple thing. It actually means that "Money sub-system of the Universe" is similar in structure to the "Universe" itself, as any "self-similar" system should be. In other words, there is a whole "Universe of Money" outhere, in which Bitcoin represents the ideal pure form of it, or God, but absolute perfection isn't possible without there being a choice for something less perfect, which brings us to the idea of "value" actually being a product of the "difference". It is the "difference" that creates "value"!

Thus recognizing the differences between us all and various forms of money is what allows us to preserve value and multiply it. Thank you for being different!

1. “Value” is derivative of deprivation, for, without deprivation, scarcity (and, therefore “value”) does not exist.

Code:

( ∀𝑥 ∀𝑦 ∀𝑧 Goat-of(𝑥, Plato) ∧ Pigeon-of(𝑦, Aristotle) ∧ Drachma-of(𝑧, Aristotle) ) ∧ ( Value-of(𝑥′, 𝑥) ∧ Value-of(𝑦′, 𝑦) ∧ Value-of(𝑧′, 𝑧) )  ⇒  ( 𝑥′ = 𝑦′ + 𝑚𝑧′ )  ⇒  ( 𝑥′ − 𝑦′ ∝ 𝑧′ )

2. Money is an accounting instrument utilized in preventing the loss of value in unequal exchanges of “valuables” (i.e., resources subject to possession and, so, deprivation).