there are plenty of problems that are very expensive to solve and very easy to verify. all NP-complete problems are like that. all of these can serve as proof-of-useful-work, there's no need to demand proof-of-waste. plus, verification can also be made into proof-of-useful-work, if you're smart enough.
now, the token-granters need not really be concerned with any of that: it could be up to the customers paying for computing to be performed by other parties to figure out how to break up their problems into smaller verifiable pieces.
even if they're hard to break up, the architecture could have room for longer tasks that grant more tokens, that dedicated compute machines (as opposed to browser-based PoWs) could engage in.
I don't know enough about proteinfoldingnprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqg74pr0ncftqw6f0h7afrch27vxvvwm07rh2eydxhqd8sfg0eewasvxrl74 (nprofile…rl74) to tell how verifiable the results are, but I know SETInprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqg74pr0ncftqw6f0h7afrch27vxvvwm07rh2eydxhqd8sfg0eewasvxrl74 (nprofile…rl74) had verification built into the architecture. those are inspiring examples of very distributed computing architectures, not necessarily systems that could be trivially integrated into such a hostile environment as proof-of-useful-work systems.
Alexandre Oliva /
npub1gy…sczug
2025-03-29 11:14:35
in reply to nevent1q…phg9
Author Public Key
npub1gyndqzp9ut22vmy6qln2j58uful0kn9lzpw86u6sng6dr3400gvq5sczugSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2025-03-29 11:14:35Event JSON
{
"id": "fc3ad69fd716ccb6c4c82d77d8ae61156608ee664affdeea2e7cd9ce11268b05",
"pubkey": "4126d00825e2d4a66c9a07e6a950fc4f3efb4cbf105c7d73509a34d1c6af7a18",
"created_at": 1743246875,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"47aa11be784ac0ed25f7f7523c5d5e6198c76dfe1dd59234d7034f04a1f9cbbb",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"7e3ea957f8e3ffaa966dc424c3ee6e9911b556f6cf9db7ac811662f2b3ef596e",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"b46e86ec4f68b3e33ec344ab1df1b178842ec9e9605ac30c413dc3b1006a5937",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://snac.lx.oliva.nom.br/lxo/p/1743246875.585624",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "there are plenty of problems that are very expensive to solve and very easy to verify. all NP-complete problems are like that. all of these can serve as proof-of-useful-work, there's no need to demand proof-of-waste. plus, verification can also be made into proof-of-useful-work, if you're smart enough.\n\nnow, the token-granters need not really be concerned with any of that: it could be up to the customers paying for computing to be performed by other parties to figure out how to break up their problems into smaller verifiable pieces.\n\neven if they're hard to break up, the architecture could have room for longer tasks that grant more tokens, that dedicated compute machines (as opposed to browser-based PoWs) could engage in.\n\nI don't know enough about proteinfoldingnostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqg74pr0ncftqw6f0h7afrch27vxvvwm07rh2eydxhqd8sfg0eewasvxrl74 to tell how verifiable the results are, but I know SETInostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqg74pr0ncftqw6f0h7afrch27vxvvwm07rh2eydxhqd8sfg0eewasvxrl74 had verification built into the architecture. those are inspiring examples of very distributed computing architectures, not necessarily systems that could be trivially integrated into such a hostile environment as proof-of-useful-work systems.\n",
"sig": "e0b60a05eb31c4348a87f5fc51a3317af89cc6987ed25da0f65013c8b53cf6c57e8fba71a6c7e42250447be7cf59942e33e0ccdbc6a3d34df991272aea4a34a7"
}