Topic: A more humanized proof of work (FWIW). (Read 178 times)

Sounds like it would make for an interesting social experiment, but it's not exactly viable for a decentralized ledger (who verifies the ledger? who prevents the ledger from being manipulated? who determines who verifies the ledger? how do you make sure that people don't assume multiple identities? etc).

One may even argue that you basically just described capitalism: Distributing currency to people that offer services that is deemed valuable by society corporations and paying them according to what the public, ie. the market, decides.



Who or what would maintain these blockchains? Anything digital and you're back at PoW, PoS, PoX...

Well, at first I wrote the first post, and then deleted that, and then restored, FWIW.

If the task's period and also valuation period is set at certain definite intervals, then the task is to be done by some deadline, and also valuation by some deadline.

So, if we also consider, following the modern trends, that the tasks can be distributed as different blockchains, or sidechains, or each particular set of task to be a blockchain, or each particular performer has a related blockchain, then it would be like a blockhain network, where each blockchain will be functioning according to its own speed.

FWIW.

Hi, all.

This is to describe a very general idea (some details to follow).

In the world, you are paid when you do something more directly useful to others, and then you are benefitted.

Nowadays,  the proof of work relies on some work done by a computer. And proof of stake, to simplify, on the number of coins that you possess, right?

So, will not the following be the more meaningful approach?

1. There is number of people, internet users.
2. There is a task to be performed on the initiative of someone, or the task to be performed, requested by someone.
3. There is a voting, in some percentage, on this task. (Also a possible voting on the candidate to perform the task).
4. The task is taken, performed, and the results of it, confirming the task done, are sent to all, or to some group.
5. The completion and quality of task is verified by all, or a majority, or trusted members (different status is implied).
6. This verification is followed by the confirmation voting, and so this voting is accepted within some period by all, or majority, or trusted members, and then, if it is mostly approved, then this "decision" is signalled to all, and is written on the blockchain, and constitutes a currency, which is then given mostly to those who completed the task, and very minor portion to those who rightly verified the task. So, the currency has different value units, and the verification by different evaluators is differently reimbursed, according to the task specifics and complexity.
7. There is a mechanism, which fines those who approve the task ill performed, or fake or not completed. There are also fines to those who did not complete the task, as promised. Many particulars are here involved.
8. So, the proof of work relies on the human assessment. And so it imposes some obligations on those who assess, on the qualities of their minds and expertise.

So, there are systems, when a person does something, and is benefitted by some currency. But what if the token itself is generated as a result of some work, approved by others?