A single example nullifies your entire argument: PrimeCoin.
Ok, you say, finding primes isn’t all that useful either. Fair objection. But there’s no reason to think that someone won’t come up with a valid POW system that does something incredibly useful, like molecular simulations. Actually it’s not that hard to do, the main difficulty is ensuring cryptographic strength. The idea of cryptographic hashes that do useful computations is already becoming a huge research field.
But fact is, POW is entirely separated from the value produced by mining. People often confuse these two concepts.
Anything with a use has value to a person benefiting from that use. The trick is to make it such that out-of-band payments to specific miners are not likely to occur.
That’s not to say that it’s absolutely, 100% a priori impossible to have a “useful but no-value” proof of work. Only theorized example I know of is time-lock decryption: you have a deterministic process for generating public keys, and the proof of work solution is the recovered private key. However this invalidates other assumptions that are required of a secure proof of work, at least with all existing public key crypto systems.
Not true. If it invalidates your ‘assumptions about incentives’, then your assumptions are wrong. All that is truly necessary is for the value of that use to be smaller than doing it in a way that doesn’t involve mining.
A simple example illustrates this: You could argue that current crypto mining already has a use: it heats up your room. In fact a lot of people run mining clusters instead of electrical heaters in the winter.
A single example nullifies your entire argument: PrimeCoin.
Ok, you say, finding primes isn’t all that useful either. Fair objection. But there’s no reason to think that someone won’t come up with a valid POW system that does something incredibly useful, like molecular simulations. Actually it’s not that hard to do, the main difficulty is ensuring cryptographic strength. The idea of cryptographic hashes that do useful computations is already becoming a huge research field.
But fact is, POW is entirely separated from the value produced by mining. People often confuse these two concepts.
A useful proof of work invalidates assumptions about incentives. To be useful it needs to be useless.
It needs to be valueless, not useless. Finding primes actually seems like something that might be both useful and low-value.
Anything with a use has value to a person benefiting from that use. The trick is to make it such that out-of-band payments to specific miners are not likely to occur.
That’s not to say that it’s absolutely, 100% a priori impossible to have a “useful but no-value” proof of work. Only theorized example I know of is time-lock decryption: you have a deterministic process for generating public keys, and the proof of work solution is the recovered private key. However this invalidates other assumptions that are required of a secure proof of work, at least with all existing public key crypto systems.
Not true. If it invalidates your ‘assumptions about incentives’, then your assumptions are wrong. All that is truly necessary is for the value of that use to be smaller than doing it in a way that doesn’t involve mining.
A simple example illustrates this: You could argue that current crypto mining already has a use: it heats up your room. In fact a lot of people run mining clusters instead of electrical heaters in the winter.