Someone should make a PoW algorithm based on useful things like game theory; for example a chess bot competing against other chess bots, the top winner forges the block and gets the rewards. This is still not extremely useful, but better than just hashing useless strings.
Ideally, PoW algorithms should be focused on real science and/or economic problems.
If the work proof additionally became useful, it would develop a secondary market, and the difficulty would reset to that new cost. In other words, the useful problem solving would just obfuscate cost. It misses the point of proof of work, which is to display a costly signal that market participants will understand.
> but telling someone they „should” do something if you don’t plan to help is a bit offensive.
I disagree with this very strongly.
How is sharing good ideas offensive?
Even if some people already knew about this, not everyone did and sharing these ideas could only help society.
That would be like telling Elon Musk to shut up when he came up with the idea for the Hyperloop but didn't implement himself... Elon just didn't have the time.
I'm no Elon but I also don't have the time because I'm working on a DEX which I think is a better use of my skills. The fact that I'm no Elon gives me even more incentive to share my ideas.
I don't have many followers, so if I implement my idea, nobody will use it (no matter how good it is); I won't be able to generate enough hype. On the other hand, if some rich person from HN sees my idea and implements it, then it will be more likely to succeed (just because of network effects). I can contribute more to society by giving my idea to someone else than implementing it myself.
You severely underestimate the power of network effects and capital.
I don't have much capital so even the best ideas in my own hands are essentially worthless. If I implement it, even if it's very good and the best of its kind, I guarantee almost 100% that nobody will be interested in it. Nobody will accept that it's the best of its kind. The media ignore it, companies will not encourage their employees to discus it with each other, etc...
Comments
Someone should make a PoW algorithm based on useful things like game theory; for example a chess bot competing against other chess bots, the top winner forges the block and gets the rewards. This is still not extremely useful, but better than just hashing useless strings.
Ideally, PoW algorithms should be focused on real science and/or economic problems.
If the work proof additionally became useful, it would develop a secondary market, and the difficulty would reset to that new cost. In other words, the useful problem solving would just obfuscate cost. It misses the point of proof of work, which is to display a costly signal that market participants will understand.
Or do a PoW on training AI, you get both buzzwords in one (infinite money), and it actually accomplishes something.
see https://gridcoin.us/
There is already a PoW that helps with protein folding.
As for „should” - you may not be aware of this, but telling someone they „should” do something if you don’t plan to help is a bit offensive.
I disagree with this very strongly. How is sharing good ideas offensive?
Even if some people already knew about this, not everyone did and sharing these ideas could only help society.
That would be like telling Elon Musk to shut up when he came up with the idea for the Hyperloop but didn't implement himself... Elon just didn't have the time.
I'm no Elon but I also don't have the time because I'm working on a DEX which I think is a better use of my skills. The fact that I'm no Elon gives me even more incentive to share my ideas.
I don't have many followers, so if I implement my idea, nobody will use it (no matter how good it is); I won't be able to generate enough hype. On the other hand, if some rich person from HN sees my idea and implements it, then it will be more likely to succeed (just because of network effects). I can contribute more to society by giving my idea to someone else than implementing it myself.
You severely underestimate the power of network effects and capital.
I don't have much capital so even the best ideas in my own hands are essentially worthless. If I implement it, even if it's very good and the best of its kind, I guarantee almost 100% that nobody will be interested in it. Nobody will accept that it's the best of its kind. The media ignore it, companies will not encourage their employees to discus it with each other, etc...