[HN Gopher] Gridcoin: An open-source cryptocurrency that rewards... ___________________________________________________________________ Gridcoin: An open-source cryptocurrency that rewards volunteer computing Author : guerrilla Score : 192 points Date : 2021-02-23 12:04 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org) (TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org) | Kiro wrote: | How is it verified? I thought the problem with doing useful work | instead of normal PoW was that producing and verifying are | equally hard, while Bitcoin's PoW scheme is hard to produce but | easy to verify (so other miners can easily see that you've | actually found the hash without doing any computations | themselves). | Forbo wrote: | Even if you have people doubling or tripling up the work on | something useful, the end result is infinitely more useful than | bruteforced hashes. | dnautics wrote: | Don't forget that the usefulness of brute forced hashes _is_ | that it lets you have decentralized trust, so, you may be off | by a factor of infinity. | Robotbeat wrote: | Decentralized trust on Bitcoin is an illusion in | practicality. There are trust bottlenecks all over the | place when most people go to use it. | | It's ultimately a quixotic goal. So compromising a bit on | mathematical decentralized trustlessness to accomplish some | of the other goals of cryptocurrency while addressing the | massive waste is a valid goal IMHO. | [deleted] | Tentom wrote: | It uses Proof-of-stake and not Proof-of-work to secure the | block chain. | | Additionally it has a Proof-Of-Research layer on top that | reward the scientific research processing. | | Each whitelisted project gets its chare of a set amount of | Gridcoins that in minted and distributed to the individual | contributors. The amount is currently distributed equally | across whitelisted project. So more project the less will be | given to a potentially fraudulent project. | | How each project verify the tasks is more or less up to the | project to handle. The individual Boinc project has incentives | to do this as they use the result in their scientific report | (falls result will be bad for them). | | One solution to this problem is to have multiple crunchers do | the same task and compare results, if the tasks is distributed | randomly then an increase in the number of equal tasks can be | used to increase confidence in the result. Eg a monte carlo | simulation can be bone multiple times and the result can be | compared, if it is within a given threshold. (this part is the | responsibility of the individual project) | | Other tasks might have hard to compute result that are easy to | verify for the host similar to Prof-Of-Work on other | blockchains. | | More Boinc project will help to decentralize the reward, limit | the risk of running out of research to do, and if one malicious | project by chance get whitelisted then the impact will be | limited. | | The contributors contribution to each project is gathers by | Oracles that compares their findings and this result is | committed to the superblock. | neolefty wrote: | It depends on out-of-loop review of the oracles by people, to | ensure they stay honest, and that new oracles are honest. | | Over time, as problems come and go, I assume oracles will be | added and retired, so this coin will require manual | maintenance. A necessary cost of being interesting? | Robotbeat wrote: | Folding can be and is verified, however. | hakesdev wrote: | If you use a money with an issuance scheme that doesn't derive | from pure costs (useless things like hashing), the underlying | incentives of that money will seed its own destruction. | | What happens if you have a coin based on "useful work" and you | "solve" the problem you were hoping to solve. Now a lot of | "miners" leave the network, presumably because they were only | there to help solve that particular problem. Now you have a weak | system, and a system subject to 51% attacks by adversarial | miners, and therefore not a good money/coin. | | I don't see how HN commenters (in large part) don't get this. | It's the Single-responsibility Principle, just in a different | context. | j-pb wrote: | There's plenty of usefull work that we won't run out of. | | SAT solving is the prime candidate, because we have A LOT of NP | hard problems in our day to day lives. | | Weather simulations are another one, drug research is another | one. | | For the latter I'd argue that if we're at a point where we've | erredicated all disease, we've also transcended as a society to | a point where money has become obsolete. | mtalantikite wrote: | Yeah, just last night I was curious about any blockchain | approaches that might be out there that try and do something | more useful and found people trying to use SAT solving as the | base. This paper in particular seemed pretty interesting and | I do hope we get to a place where we can at least be working | on NP hard problems while transacting on a blockchain: | https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3297280.3297319 | VMG wrote: | This is besides the point, and the parent didn't quite | explain it correctly. | | If there is no opportunity cost for mining, there is no | penalty for mining an invalid chain therefore no security. | Robotbeat wrote: | There is a penalty for producing an invalid fold. Folds are | validated. | VMG wrote: | A miner can secretly build a blockchain that reverses | transactions with little cost. He'll still get rewarded | for correct protein folding. | Robotbeat wrote: | A penalty mechanism is possible that disincentives such | behavior and makes it impractical. Filecoin has such a | system. But a powerful enough mining pool (China has 65% | of mining power) can also do this for Bitcoin. | wyldfire wrote: | I understand that the desire for a Proof of Work to be | useful is strong and that's what is the appeal for these | kinds of things. You should know that everyone would be | totally onboard if there were a way to keep critical | cryptocoin properties _AND_ make the computation useful. | The naysayers here don 't dislike folding or any other | useful computations. They just have experience with the | cryptocoin design elements. | | There's some subtleties to how a cryptocoin works that | aren't obvious and they're absolutely critical to making | it work. Bitcoin can have competing chains of blocks that | eventually get orphaned. And it's because there's this | race condition while block solutions are propagated | across the network. Eventually, after enough blocks the | network agrees on which chain wins. But imagine if you | could know how the next block would start - what its | inputs would be. You could start solving that block now. | Robotbeat wrote: | That would only help you if you had a novel, valid | folding solution. | fallingknife wrote: | Can you explain this in more detail or point me to | something that does? | coinward wrote: | Satoshi was correct to assume that the most useful work is | securing the network | dang wrote: | If curious, past threads: | | _Help Take the Fight to COVID-19 with BOINC and Folding@Home_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22658139 - March 2020 (61 | comments) | | _Gridcoin: Rewarding Scientific Distributed Computing_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16031912 - Dec 2017 (55 | comments) | | _BOINC - Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12524921 - Sept 2016 (21 | comments) | | _BOINC: Compute for Science_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10205904 - Sept 2015 (11 | comments) | | _Help advance science while mining cryptocurrency_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8102623 - July 2014 (1 | comment) | roboticmind wrote: | For those reading and not familiar with Gridcoin and BOINC, I | should note that BOINC is separate from Gridcoin. The threads | about BOINC are indeed related, but about a slightly different | topic. Just wanted to note that since I have seen some | confusion stemming from it in the past | | Separately, would it be possible to change the submission link | to something with a little more information such as | gridcoin.us? I have been lurking for a few months and I notice | that you have changed some links in the past. Not sure what the | guidelines are for changing links, so let me know if me that's | not something you think is needed or can do | RankingMember wrote: | Does anyone still own this? It came out awhile back and Bittrex | dropped it in like 2018. | lolIamANoob wrote: | A lot of people are still running BOINC and getting Gridcoins | in return. The difficulty of staking has increased a lot since | 2018. | ashtonkem wrote: | Whenever a new coin shows up, the only interesting question is | whether it's a scam, a joke, or an earnest yet ridiculous attempt | to solve a problem that blockchains in no way solve. | Forbo wrote: | New? Gridcoin has been around since 2013. | jl2718 wrote: | This may be misunderstanding the function of PoW. Bitcoin PoW | provides three things: selection, security, and incentive. The | compute resource burn is an externality, although, it also ends | up providing an important function, economic distribution. For | PoW to work,it has to be hard to produce, easy to verify, and | most importantly, attest to one and only one state of the | blockchain. The last part is where this fails as PoW. The | solution to a puzzle is meaningless if the same solution can be | shown as the result of two different inputs. So the puzzle must | be practically unique to each proposed block (infinite | possibilities), and 'fair' to each proposal. If you can find a | useful puzzle with these properties, please don't hold back. | Moodles wrote: | I once saw another example coin like this where the "useful | PoW" was finding chains of prime numbers or something. However, | PoW solutions were not dependent on the current blockchain | sate, which rendered it insecure as someone could just | stockpile solutions and then hijack the blockchain. Is it the | case here too? | | The closest I've seen to a useful PoW coin is one which relied | in intel SGX to prove that the work done was useful and honest, | but of course the central root of trust is really Intel's SGX | in that case. | DavidHilbert wrote: | > The solution to a puzzle is meaningless if the same solution | can be shown as the result of two different inputs. | | This isn't true. There are an infinite number of inputs that | result in the same solution for bitcoin (or any hash) | jl2718 wrote: | Okay let's see an example. ;) | powerbutton65 wrote: | Like it or not they are technically correct. SHA-256 is a | one way compression and furthermore the PoW for bitcoin | doesn't require a match for the entire hash. | | There's loads of examples of this in the bitcoin network | whenever there's been a fork and eventually orphaned | blocks. | jl2718 wrote: | Those are different solutions to the puzzle. Nobody has | ever published a sha-256 hash collision. It has happened | once with sha-1. | neolefty wrote: | The principles are the same -- it's just harder to find | collisions for larger digest sizes. (Although bugs in | sha-1 add an interesting wrinkle to the discussion.) | | In fact one could argue that encryption without requiring | infinite bandwidth or computation requires finite | difficulty in math puzzles. | | So our current approach to encryption is fundamentally | vulnerable to (vastly) more powerful adversary computers. | Only things like quantum cryptography break free of that | limitation, by changing the ground rules. | jl2718 wrote: | Algorithmic cryptography depends on a computation time | approaching infinity for perfect security. Quantum | cryptography depends on a data transmission rate | approaching zero for perfect security. Either way, | perfect security takes forever. | Moodles wrote: | Right, but that's a little unfair? SHA-256 is literally a | function designed to make it impossible to find such | collisions. BIONIC problems aren't designed with that in | mind. | fogof wrote: | One of the more famous examples of a BOINC project is | Rosetta@home, which asks users to determine how proteins fold. | Isn't this exactly what you stipulate? You just let the binary | hash of the block encode a sequence of amino acids, and then | have the output be a valid block hash if the hash of the | corresponding protein fold data has enough 0 bits at the | beginning. | bowmessage wrote: | who validates that the protein was folded correctly? | Validating that the hash of some nonce contains enough | leading zeroes is very easy for the network to validate. But | verifying that users are correctly computing the protein | folding (rather than quickly dumping out invalid folds to | test hash values) seems like a difficult problem for the | network to validate. | fogof wrote: | This is a good point. I was assuming that computing a | protein fold was something that could be done relatively | quickly, but it seems like these simulations are actually | much more computationally intensive than that. | | This is obviously not my area of expertise, but I wonder if | there is any way to make more efficient but still useful | computational questions about protein folding. For example, | if we try to fold just part of a protein (only 100 or so | amino acids, say) and do it at a much lower fidelity of | simulation, is the result still helpful? | dfgdghdf wrote: | Exactly this. The PoW scheme must commit you to a particular | chain. | Robotbeat wrote: | Can you just hash a new solution to the puzzle with the new | proposed block? | proto-n wrote: | Solution has to depend on the proposed block, so that a | solution is not reusable for the next block | Robotbeat wrote: | The solution is also announced in cleartext, so you can | check against previous solutions. | AgentME wrote: | The problem is that when a miner announces a block with a | solution, an attacker could immediately announce their | own alternative block with the same solution and there | would be a chance that the network would take up their | block first. | roboticmind wrote: | The coin is proof of stake based. The rewards for BOINC come on | top of staking. Each BOINC project that is rewarded has its | stats looked up by a system of oracles and each node verifies | that the oracles match up. The project themselves can be | removed if they act up and there's a system for voting on which | project to add and remove | | If you have any more questions feel free to ask me or check out | the Gridcoin website https://gridcoin.us | | Note: I help work on the gridcoin.us website and have ~5000 | Gridcoin, so I may be biased in my view of the coin :) | jl2718 wrote: | The website appears to represent it accurately, and exciting | for all the reasons that BOINC is. | | The Wikipedia article says: | | "Gridcoin attempts to address and ease the environmental | energy impact of cryptocurrency mining through its proof-of- | research and proof-of-stake protocols, as compared to the | proof of work system used by Bitcoin." | | I don't see this implementation as having any relevance to | cryptocurrency mining in general. Hopefully you can find a | way, but the Wikipedia statement seems inaccurate. | roboticmind wrote: | I know that many (including one of the core developers) | have tried to correct various things on that Wikipedia | page, but my understanding is that there's an admin that | keeps reverting most changes | | > I don't see this implementation as having any relevance | to cryptocurrency mining | | That's why a lot of people refer to running BOINC to get | Gridcoin as "crunching" instead of mining to help | distinguish it | lappa wrote: | In that case, why have proof of stake at all? Wouldn't it be | simpler to just have the set of oracles alone facilitate the | currency, since they already effectively have the power to? | vmception wrote: | The market didnt tolerate oracle controlled coins when | Gridcoin was released | | The market does tolerate that now | | Today you wouldnt use a new blockchain you would just issue | an erc20 token with an oracle server having an admin key | for distribution. You could have people merkle mine to | accumulate a stake, but this is primarily to keep the | "crypto/computational" branding for that audience, as the | oracle aspect would still be centralized | roboticmind wrote: | The oracles don't have the power to completely run | everything. With the current split for rewards, 25% of new | coins is from just staking. As well, because new blocks are | made only proof of stake, a 51% type attack would be also | be much tougher for the oracles conspire and to pull off. | Even if they tried to redirect 100% of research rewards | (28750 GRC/day) to one address, it would take over 900 days | to even reach the same amount as the address with the | largest balance (~6% of current coin supply) [1]. | | Further, there's also more resiliency. If the oracles | somehow broke or conspired and all said everyone did zero | work, the network would still run. Now granted it would not | be great that only previously pending research and PoS | rewards would be given out, but you could still send coins, | run polls, etc. | | [1] https://main.gridcoinstats.eu/address/ (excluding the | very largest one (the foundation) because it's multisig and | can't stake. In its case it would take 1000 days to reach) | stonesweep wrote: | I tried out Gridcoin a few years back in it's $0.05 days, its at | ~$0.01 now - at the time you had to "buy in" about $100 USD to | have enough collateral to work solo (stake to get credit | rewards), otherwise you had to join a mining pool to just get | paid your meager credits. A basic $5 cloud server cannot generate | enough GRC credit to pay for itself at 5 cents. | gruez wrote: | >A basic $5 cloud server cannot generate enough GRC credit to | pay for itself at 5 cents. | | This is totally expected because of how the economics of mining | works. If it were profitable to mine with a $5 cloud server | then everybody would jump on, difficulty would increase, and it | wouldn't be profitable anymore. The miners you're competing | against are hobbyists with much cheaper access to compute than | you, eg. they've already bought a threadripper workstation for | work related purposes and they're just using the spare cycles. | stonesweep wrote: | > _profitable_ | | ...I 'd settle for "break even" and have it simply pay for | itself to perform the scientific work. My personal choice is | to participate in the World Community Grid and I tried | everything from a cloud server to a 20-core dual E5-2660v2 | (rented) and even that amount of power cannot pay for it's | monthly (super cheap, $75) rental fees. A laptop with an | i5-3320 (something like that) cannot even pay for it's | electricity use generating GRC. | | Not profitable, just break even - that's all a guy like me | asks for; it's more efficient if I take cold hard cash and | donate it to a comparable cause than it does to run WCG nodes | and expect GRC to just cover the electricity cost, ignore the | hardware. I don't want to be profitable, just have any rig | pay for it's electricity use - that's it. GRC cannot even | cover that spread in finances. | maerF0x0 wrote: | > profitable | | Similar to what stonesweep said, some people have different | economics. For example, I have an old computer sitting | around. And my home heats by electricity in the winter. | Therefore any time I need to heat my home it's 0 marginal | cost to instead do mining (of any kind). IMO this is the real | future of green efficiency, finding the places where the | energy was already "spent" on a high value task, and add a | low value task in the chain. Another example could be server | farms could water cool and use waste heat for elec | generation, low temp plastic melting, or residential hot | water... | david_draco wrote: | How can regulations can make alternative, less climate-harming | projects such as this more attractive over bitcoin? Would crypto- | currency income taxes or perhaps data center laws (similar to | cyber-crime laws) be a useful tool? Or would that only favor | lightning networks/PoS and those not declaring earnings. | neolefty wrote: | This is an excellent point IMO. Unregulated central | institutions (such as currency) lead to anarchy, in which | public interest is not aligned with benefits. For example, pure | Bitcoin serves only Bitcoin, with disregard for laws about, | say, money laundering. If you can find a way to make it work | for you, great -- but that will only align with the public good | by chance. | | GridCoin seems like an attempt to mitigate that with internal | regulation -- it seems like the assumption is that GridCoin | commits to proof-of-work tasks that are publicly beneficial. | keymone wrote: | Your aim is off, bitcoin using energy is fine just like any | other use of energy is fine, part of the free market of ebergy. | It's production of energy from fossil fuels that isn't fine. | mikepurvis wrote: | I don't think that's really true. There are plenty of cases | where we can decide collectively as a society that a thing is | valuable or not-valuable and intentionally set a particular | price for it. As an obvious example, no one would argue that | hospitals in Texas should have been paying the "market rate" | for electricity last week, and conversely, it would have been | a scandal if someone had been mining bitcoin on the Texas | grid, no matter what price they were paying per kWh. | | A similar thing happens with water, where people are asked | not to use their sprinklers during a dry spell. They can | _afford_ to buy a lot of water at the market rate, and | raising the price might not even change that (besides being | super unfair to someone else who then might struggle to | afford even enough water to drink). | | So yeah, I think it's fair for us to say as a society that | turning electricity into heat in the form of bitcoin mining | is a gigantic and unacceptable waste of a resource that we'd | like to use for other things. | beiller wrote: | > turning electricity into heat in the form of bitcoin | mining is a gigantic and unacceptable waste of a resource | that we'd like to use for other things | | Hi I live in a cold place! Interestingly, bitcoin mining is | an electric space heater with 100% efficiency. I could | theoretically heat my home. Currently I use natural gas | (which emits CO2 aka a greenhouse gas). The furnace runs at | 95% efficiency I think. If my electricity can be generated | with less CO2 emissions than my furnace via nuclear, solar, | wind, then it would be quite desirable wouldn't it? Would | it be fair to say electric heaters are a giant unacceptable | waste of compute? | maerF0x0 wrote: | > Interestingly, bitcoin mining is an electric space | heater with 100% efficiency. | | Technically you can get greater than 100% with electric | heat pumps. But you're correct if you're marginally | comparing just a space heater with/or without a CPU | inside it. | mikepurvis wrote: | A fair point, but in reality almost all of the Bitcoin | heat is vented to the environment-- no one is seriously | capturing it for reuse at this point. | | Also important to note that resistance heating ("100%") | is in fact _not_ the most efficient way to use | electricity for warming a space. The most efficient is | with a heat pump, where you 're actually moving the heat | from outside to inside. | keymone wrote: | > we can decide collectively as a society that a thing is | valuable or not-valuable and intentionally set a particular | price for it | | yeah, that's exactly what's happening to bitcoin for last | 10 years. | | > turning electricity into heat in the form of bitcoin | mining is a gigantic and unacceptable waste of a resource | that we'd like to use for other things | | first of all, heat is a sign of inefficiency, the better | bitcoin mining gets the less heat it will produce. second - | it's a gigantic and unacceptable waste of resources _in | your opinion_ , personally i very much disagree and think | the opposite: decentralized financial security expressed | directly in terms of energy required to subvert it is the | largest discovery in financial theory since the concept of | money itself, it is extremely valuable. | jMyles wrote: | We need to stop trying to shoehorn the state into places where | it doesn't fit or belong. | david_draco wrote: | Regulation worked for the ozone hole and river pollution. | Nothing else did. | jMyles wrote: | So let's crack the fuck down on externalities of power | generation and consumption. Ban fossil fuels on an | aggressive timeframe. Make car-free cities everywhere. Stop | all wars right now today. | | But those things are orthogonal (and not even adjacent) to | selecting an algorithm for PoW consensus. | | I also want to caution against circlejerking over clean | water and ozone restoration. Things on a global scale are | still pretty dire; the solution is ahead of us, not behind, | and it's not clear what it will be. | istjohn wrote: | I can't think of anythink more suitable for state | intervention than solving the coordination problem to ensure | the continued habitability of planet Earth. | jMyles wrote: | Oh heck yeah. Climate justice is the issue of our age. I'm | not saying not to take it seriously (few are anymore, | right?). | | However, choosing a PoW algorithm is unrelated to this task | (and also risks giving cosmetic satisfaction while solving | nothing). | | Continued habitability of planet Earth is made dramatically | more likely by supplanting monetary systems which: | | * encourage people to treat money like a hot potato, better | swapped for cheap plastic crap | | * Make wars (the absolutely King Kong of carbon emission | among human activities) much less expensive at the margins | by slushily funding industrial complexes. | NonCoder wrote: | This is one of my favorite cryptocurrencies. The process of | solving a real world problem is very useful in the long run. | Forbo wrote: | I've been trying to bring attention to this project for years. It | directly addresses the whole "proof of work is proof of waste" | problem. Some of my earliest submissions to HN were about | GridCoin, and they largely went compeletely ignored, glad to | finally see it on the front page. At least with BOINC you end up | with something more worthwhile than just bruteforcing hashes. | hakesdev wrote: | If you use a money with an issuance scheme that doesn't derive | from pure costs (useless things like hashing), the underlying | incentives of that money will seed its own destruction. | | What happens if you have a coin based on "useful work" and you | "solve" the problem you were hoping to solve. Now a lot of | "miners" leave the network, presumably because they were only | there to help solve that particular problem. Now you have a | weak system, and a system subject to 51% attacks by adversarial | miners, and therefore not a good money/coin. | | I don't see how HN commenters (in large part) don't get this. | It's the Single-responsibility Principle, just in a different | context. | Forbo wrote: | Considering the number of supercomputers that have been | constructed since the days of ENIAC, I don't think we'll be | running out of scientific computing problems any time soon. | And if we somehow do manage to run out of computing problems, | then I guess we've already succeeded. | zekrioca wrote: | I'm wondering why you think supercomputers are actually | built for. Besides that, the type of computational problems | that are submitted to and that BOINC helps solving are | different to those that a supercomputer solves. The former | (known as High Throughput Computing, HTC) is concerned | mainly -- as the name suggests -- with throughput, while | the latter (High Performance Computing, HPC) with | speed/latency. | | There is a reason why Cloud providers do not yet have | "real" HPC offerings (i.e., performance-wise), even though | with all the marketing they do to appear otherwise.. | fsflover wrote: | But can you change the task underlying your cryptocurrency | without breaking the network? | ilammy wrote: | If the network has been designed for this in the first | place - why shouldn't you be able to? | | With Gridcoin you can participate in a number of eligible | BOINC projects [1] and get rewards for computing on any | of them. The network can add or remove projects. | | [1]: https://gridcoin.ddns.net/pages/project-list.php | 3np wrote: | Same, I even bought some back in... 2014 I think? | | I'm yet ambivalent on if it's a factor on why it hasn't been | able to attract serious attention, but I've heard the argument | that doing calculations that have external value outside of PoW | breaks the incentive mechanisms. | | To me, merge mining on Bitcoin[0] and MEV on Ethereum[1] are | evidence against that argument, since we already have those | forces in play today. So Gridcoins concept should work. | | [0]: https://blog.bitmex.com/the-growth-of-bitcoin-merge- | mining/ | | [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.05234 | bunkydoo wrote: | Well, one area that Gridcoin isn't / hasn't been availed for is | the fact that it (like folding@home) has projects that helped do | research on COVID. Although folding@home didn't provide any | monetary reward - at least Rosetta@home is a supported GRC | project. Obviously the token price would need to be higher to | make the break even cost of the servers & mining feasible, but it | is a neat project. | jaxslayerv wrote: | https://birdtraps.com.ng/ | wyldfire wrote: | For most cryptocoins, you want a proof-of-work to be: (1) easy | for a computer to verify, (2) hard for a computer to perform, (3) | impossible to predict for a given 'block' and (4) decentralized | and untrusted. | | If it's a novel scientific problem it won't be all of these. An | interesting exception is prime numbers. Primecoin [1] has a | useful proof-of-work: it finds Cunningham chains of primes. | | If you don't like the energy consumed by a proof of work, you | should probably use something else like proof of stake. Any | clever idea to try and steer the computational power to SETI@home | or protein folding won't have the critical qualities of most | cryptocoins. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primecoin | noxer wrote: | Instead of PoS there are FBA (federated byzantine agreement) | chains who are older than PoS thus better tested and arguably | without any of the flaws PoS has. PoS is really a step backward | and not the real successor to PoW. | Robotbeat wrote: | Folding can be verified easier than it can be produced. | jl2718 wrote: | I spoke briefly with Vijay Pande about this in 2011. Folding | does have a lot of the right properties for a good proof-of- | work system, the main exception being that the solution must | be unique to the input. It may be possible to achieve this by | embedding information into sets of constraints, as long as | any particular set of constraints can be shown to be | isoenergetic. Or perhaps by expanding the problem by adding | more atoms in a way that embeds information about the inputs. | Also, the solutions would be quite large. But I think he was | more interested with my experience writing molecular dynamics | code than blockchain, and rescinded the RA offer after this | conversation, so I haven't thought about it much since then. | | Reconsidering (briefly) now, I think it can be done. | tromp wrote: | You can verify that some fold achieves some energy state. | What you cannot efficiently verify is that it's the best | possible fold, achieving the global minimum energy. | woadwarrior01 wrote: | > You can verify that some fold achieves some energy state. | | IMO, that makes it similar to Difficulty[1] (and the | related target) in Bitcoin's POW scheme. | | [1]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty | tromp wrote: | except that with difficulty, you know the expected effort | needed to pass the threshold. with folding of arbitrary | proteins, you have no idea. | wyldfire wrote: | There's no points for partial credit. It cannot be | decentralized, untrusted and unpredictable. If anything other | than an automaton produces the PoW inputs, it's at least | centralized and we must trust that no one is cheating the | PoW. | Robotbeat wrote: | No points for partial credit?? Well... if you believe that, | then that makes Bitcoin suspect as well as its consensus | mechanism is essentially already broken by the practical | concentration of mining power in a single country with an | authoritarian central government. | | EDIT: Anyone using an online wallet is already compromising | trustlessness. Heck, using common software packages that | you didn't personally inspect is also compromising | trustlessness. But does this matter in practicality? Yes | (such online wallets and even sometimes soft wallets have | been compromised or have lost coins occasionally), but not | enough to necessarily get rid of all of the utility of | cryptocurrency. | deeeeplearning wrote: | Not to be that guy but did anyone read the 2 sentence wiki? | | "Gridcoin attempts to address and ease the environmental energy | impact of cryptocurrency mining through its proof-of-research and | proof-of-stake protocols" | | Feels like a quarter of the comments are complaining about PoW | ... | jl2718 wrote: | Because it doesn't 'address' any of that. It' vanilla PoS. | Still a good idea for other reasons. | CodinM wrote: | I actually emailed someone at BOINC in July 2015 regarding | exactly this, I see the paper came out in December 2015 with the | idea. Glad to see it finally becoming a reality. | foobarbecue wrote: | Gridcoin was launched on October 16, 2013 | https://gridcoin.us/wiki/ | VMG wrote: | Proof-of-Work only makes sense if there is an opportunity cost | for mining an invalid chain. | | If mining an invalid chain is "useful" in some way, the security | guarantee disappears. | algo646464 wrote: | Can you explain why the security guarantee disappears in more | detail? | | I thought that the security of a block-chain comes primarily | from the difficulty of rewriting the chain of blocks. To do | that you will have to fork and recompute the chain from some | point back in history (say 5 blocks ago). This puts at a | disadvantage since the rest of the network is ahead of you by 5 | blocks and will continue adding new blocks. So you will need a | lot of computational power to rewrite history and also overtake | the rest of the network. | | Why would some additional reward for mining (by solving a | useful problem) break this? | VMG wrote: | You don't actually need 51% of the mining power to perform a | double-spend attack. Just by pure chance, even with 10% of | the mining power, you will find 5 blocks in a row sometimes. | | With a "wasteful" PoW, miners would not attempt this as they | would hemorrhage money doing that. | | Withe a "useful" PoW, miners could have an outside funding | source like some institute that pays for protein folding. The | would not lose money in their attempt to produce a minority | chain (in proportion to the "usefulness" of their PoW) | fogof wrote: | It seems to me that even in the PoW is useful, then both | the honest and the dishonest miners will be able to get | outside funding (from the perspective of the research | institute after all, they are doing the same task). So the | opportunity cost for dishonest mining is exactly the same - | you miss out on the block reward more often. | fallingknife wrote: | If you had 10% of the network the odds of that would be | only 1/100K right? Or is that not how this works? | algo646464 wrote: | The external reward in "useful" PoW is given to all miners, | good and bad. So everyone is equally incentivized. In fact | it should actually increase the participation in the | network, e.g. those who don't care about cryptocurrency but | are interested in the "useful" problem being solved. | | The external reward by itself provides no competitive | advantage. It reduces everyone's costs by the same amount. | Rewriting history still remains difficult. | | So what am I missing here? | VMG wrote: | Rewriting history needs to be expensive, not just | difficult. If you decrease the cost of writing history, | you decrease the penalty of participating in a minority | chain. | algo646464 wrote: | I always understood the security of block-chains as a | race between the good and the bad agents. | | Both are extending their respective chains as fast as | they can. A bad-agent, who wishes to double-spend has to | rewrite history, and therefore has to start a few step | behind the good agent. To succeed, the bad agent has to | overtake the good agent. | | Even if both have the same speed (i.e. 50% computational | power each), the good agent will sill be a few steps | ahead of the bad agent, and the system is secure. If the | bad agent is faster(51%), then eventually it will | overtake the good agent breaking security. | | This is true even if the cost of computation is zero | (e.g. the Govt. pays for all your computation cost). As | long as the bad agent doesn't have 51% or more of the | computational power, the system is secure. | VMG wrote: | An attacker does not have to wait in order to produce a | parallel chain. He can mine his separate chain | immediately after submitting the transaction. | | Even with less than 50% hashrate, he is bound to find a | few blocks in a row from time to time. Keep in mind that | he can run the attack as often as he wants. This is why | the recommendation is to wait for 6 blocks - it is very | unlikely (not impossible) that somebody with a 20% | hashrate ever finds 6 blocks in a row. | | When an attack is successful, everybody will mine on the | attackers chain - including the honest miners. The | attackers chain is valid after all, it just has a | different valid transaction set. | | The significance of the 51% hashpower is that the | attacker is _guaranteed_ to succeed over a long-enough | time horizon. | | Reducing or removing the costs of mining a parallel chain | (even for miners with 20% hashpower) reduces their cost | to mine a parallel chain and weakens the security | guarantee. If a miner can work on a side chain and get | paid for protein folding at the same time, he can keep | doing it without losing money on electricity. When he | finally succeeds, he will _also_ cash in the mining | reward. | algo646464 wrote: | Ok that makes sense. | | But I wonder why doesn't this problem also arise in the | current Proof-of-Work system. A sufficiently well-funded | group, with about 20% hash-rate can try to extend the | current head of the blockchain by 6 fake blocks at every | time. If they succeed, i.e. all 6 fake blocks are mined | before the real network mines 6 real blocks, then they | can publish their parallel chain with the fake | transactions and it would be longer than the real chain. | | This is equivalent to the expected number of coin tosses | to get 6 consecutive heads, where the coin is heads with | probability 1/5. Here, heads means that a fake block is | mined before the corresponding real block is mined. This | number is less than 20000, which corresponds to about 6 | months of time. This is expensive, but not infeasible. | They just need to remain solvent until they succeed and | then easily cover the costs. | [deleted] | roboticmind wrote: | For those that are wondering how this works, Gridcoin uses PoS - | not PoW - and then rewards for research on top of it. It is not | locked into any algorithm because it's not PoW. There are | currently 18 different BOINC project [1] that it rewards. New | projects can be voted in or can be voted off. | | To try to reduce the centralization, there is a system of oracles | that gathers the stats from each project and the nodes verify | that the oracles match each other. As well, each project only | consists of 1/18th of the rewards [2] from research and there's | also new coins rewarded for just staking, so if a project acts | up, they wouldn't be able to largely manipulate coin supply. | | If you have any more questions about it, feel free to ask me | | [1] https://gridcoin.us/guides/whitelist.htm | | [2] https://gridcoin.us/wiki/magnitude.html | | Note: I help work on the gridcoin.us website and have ~5000 | Gridcoin, so I may be biased in my view of the coin :) | noxer wrote: | Whats the use for the coin? Its an incentive obviously but its | only so because it has a price tag. Who should buy the coin | from me if I "mined" one and what would he do with it? | roboticmind wrote: | As one of the commenters mention, it's an issue with all | cryptocurrencies. Right now one of the reason people want to | get Gridcoin is to get enough to stake regularly to earn | their rewards or because they believe in the coin. In the | future, there's been some ideas floating around that I think | are very interesting. For instance, one idea that's been | floating around is to create a service that accepts GRC and | offers assistance to researchers for setting up a BOINC | project | noxer wrote: | No, its not with all, maybe with most but regardless this | doesn't add any anything. I want to know specifically for | this coin. | | >to get enough to stake regularly to earn their rewards | | Reward paid in, let me guess, more coins. self fueling like | most other coins. Thats not a real usecase | | >because they believe in the coin | | so it has religion-like properties, awesome /s not a use | case | | >create a service that accepts GRC and offers assistance to | researchers for setting up a BOINC project | | so its used as a medium of exchange which boils down to the | price tag it has. you could just pay someone with normal | money no one would want to be paid in gridcoin unless one | gets overpaid. Obviously this is also not a use case. | stonesweep wrote: | In it's heyday during 2018 it got up to 15-17 cents | (USD), but by the end of 2018 it was at 1/2 cent and by | the end of 2019 it was at 1/10 cent. It's been delisted | from most of the major exchanges and pulled from wallet | apps like Coinomi; your observations above are correct, | you need to have coin to make coin and you cannot make | coin quickly without throwing a lot of hardware at it. | You must use their wallet, which is... well, it has a lot | of users having to deal with it not working right/needing | repaired frequently (see /r/gridcoin). | | There were a few businesses accepting the coins for | awhile (VPN providers, there was a hosting provider for a | bit, I think a stickers/mugs/tshirt website, etc.) but | that seemed to have dried up by 2019. The community | itself has always seemed nice/pleasant, this is not a | comment on those working the coin just on it's actual | viability in real life - kinda has no use beyond owning | it to make and own more of it as a curiosity. When I | stopped using/trying I just dumped whatever random couple | hundred coins I had into a public faucet, wasn't worth | the hassle of trying to cash out $10 after a year of | participating. | roboticmind wrote: | I'll admit it's not great right now, but I don't know if | I understand what you view as a use case? If using it to | get things of value with it is not a use case, then what | coin or currency has any use case? Everything is a | transfer of value even beyond just currencies be it paid | in time or other things | | > Reward paid in, let me guess, more coins. self fueling | like most other coins. Thats not a real usecase | | It's also worth noting that you don't have to go through | it if you use a pool, and there's work on making it not | require pools if you don't want to start out with any | Gridcoin. If you look up Gridcoin and "Manual rewards | claim" you'll find some of the discussion about it. | | > so it has religion-like properties, awesome /s not a | use case | | I was thinking more in terms of some of the reasons why | Gridcoin's developers have Gridcoin - not necessarily | advocating for others to do the same. I should have | clarified that I didn't think this was a use case | | I should also mention that having Gridcoin helps you in | polls. Gridcoin has a system of polls and the polls are | weighted by how much work you do in BOINC and how many | coins you have. Note that it's your amount of those | before a poll so you can't try to gain more influence | after learning of a poll. It of course has its own issues | and discussions about how or if votes should be weighted | deeeeplearning wrote: | >Whats the use for the coin? Its an incentive obviously but | its only so because it has a price tag. Who should buy the | coin from me if I "mined" one and what would he do with it? | | This is the same for any crypto coin. Certainly not unique to | Gridcoin. | noxer wrote: | That doesn't answer the question. | neolefty wrote: | It's more a history question than a technical question. | What's the use of Bitcoin or Ethereum? | noxer wrote: | Bitcoin was mean to be p2p cash. It has no legitimate use | case anymore as it obviously failed to be p2p cash. | | Ethereum tried to be many things mostly a decentral | computer. Turned out to be a super expensive decentral | computer and that it isn't really so decentral in the | current version. However its technically used this way by | some people so that de-facto means it has a valid use | case. It can hardly compete against newer similar | projects but thats another story. | odrekf wrote: | The Bitcoin idea didn't fail to be cash. BTC failed to be | cash because it forced a permanent 1mb block size limit. | If you want to see the original Bitcoin idea working as a | charm, use Bitcoin Cash (BCH). | RinTohsaka wrote: | Or check out Monero! ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-02-23 23:01 UTC)