Since posting that thought balloon on proof of work and its unfortunate social costs, I've been informed in private conversation that there are two considerations that I missed:
1. if the cost of the proof of work is brought down to zero by means of some re-use of the hashing, whatever that is, then we bring into question the security of the network. The network is secured literally because it costs to vote. If the vote is free, in some sense or other, then those with a free vote can seek to dominate.
2. the proof of work suffers a security weakness in that it must be verifiable at much lower cost than doing the work, as otherwise an attacker can provide junk proofs.
On the first, it is somewhat clear that this is the case in grand principle, but examining the edge cases reveals some exceptions. Take for example a 1 kilowatt hashing unit that could be used to simply provide building heat. If I use the waste output to heat my house, this is considered to result in a free vote. But this is not an adequate attack at the 51% level; my house isn't that big.
In apparent paradox, PoW as heating leads to more security because if I can heat my house and vote for the price, getting both for the price of one, it is still an effect that is capped at very low shares of the overall hashset. So, the result is more distribution in hashing and mining, rather than less, and this is a defence against today's more worrying trend being the concentration of mining in few people's hands.
More distribution directly attacks one of the current flaws of the current system. So how about this: instead of selling the latest hardware in Megawatt sizes, sell some smaller units in kilowatt sizes. I'd happily run a kilowatt grade heater instead of a bar heater, especially if it had a little panel on it showing its progress on voting, and it occasionally purred as it earned some proportion of heating costs back in shares in a hashpool.
On the second: cheaply verifiable problems are rare but they are not non-existent. Specifically, verification of some public key signatures is one. So why can't the PoW be refactored to make public key signatures?
For example, big SSL servers often outsource the hard crypto to accelerators and so forth; if the hard iron being built now could also be used for that factor, two things become possible. One is that the research effort being expended could be shared across the two requirements. Right now, all this ASIC building is resulting in some usefully fast petahashing but that has only limited spin-off potential beyond bitcoin mining.
The second plausibility, when a bitcoin mining rig passes its 6 months viable window, and becomes just more mining excrement, it can then be re-purposed to some other task. I would happily pay $1000 for something that hypothetically sped up my signature signing or verification by a factor of a 1000. The fact that this device would have fetched 100 times as much 6 months back and scored me 25 BTC every week isn't a problem, but an opportunity: for both myself and the old owner.
How would this be done in practice? Well, I want to load up my key in the device and run sigs through it. So we would need a design where each block's PoW were dependent on the full operation of a private/public key and hash signing process. E.g., take the last block, use the entropy within it to feed a known DRGB, create a deterministic private key pair, and load that up. Keep feeding the PoW machine new signature inputs ...
But, these ruminations aside, it appears that the socially unbeneficial criticism of PoW is a bent arrow. The purpose of PoW is much more subtle than might seem from first appearances. I think it is important to find a more socially aligned method, but it seems equally likely that the existing PoW of petahashing will be very hard to dislodge.Posted by iang at September 22, 2014 04:09 PM | TrackBack