Topic: "Proof of Human" Coin ? - page 2. (Read 3895 times)

It's important to notice that there are different kinds of ways to require human input, and that a big factor is the motive behind the coin.

As with any technology, a person wants maximum benefit and minimum damage.

The best way to implement "proof of human" to start is in a coin that has severe limitations, like if you invent a gun, first give it to somebody who can't hear or see too well. Huntercoin took a lot of the big steps in developing the human idea, but the game that the coin uses is something nobody wants to play, the cost to play is prohibitive etc. But if you are interested in how that tech should be developed, look at huc and its devs who are not as mercenary as most.

can someone here please give me a response to my questions? on page 2? Do any of these scenarios constitute a proof of human coin?

I saw a project a while back working on this in the Ethereum Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4aoavy/two_new_components_for_the_proofofindividuality/. They were trying to use Google hangouts to give people a proof of identity token. However, I think things like UPort (https://www.uport.me/) on Ethereum are solving this problem in a different way, by associating addresses with human information. E.g. you can add your address, or some of your IoT data to a given address, and let Dapps request that information from you (and regulate who gets to see what).

Great that this thread is still alive. Ideally a "proof of human" coin would do useful work. Starting with captcha is ok, but what if it could be applied to learning, or perhaps analysis to help society. That would be the best proof of human algorithm.

This is actually what is happening now in Mrai people are accepting low fee for solving captchas because this is easy and fast money and mrai is such a popular coin today that it is profitable and easy to invite newbies to participate to mine this coin.

OK guys i am deeply interested in this right now. '

If a coin or coins were only able to enter the circulating supply by a HUMAN solving some sort of puzzle unsolvable by a computer alone does this constitute as a PROOF OF HUMAN coin? or is this a PUZZLECOIN?

here is another point of view.


Say there are coins being MINED using something similar to Proof of Stake (proof of stake would not work properly in my opinion but this is just an example) and transaction ledger is being built. The transactions happen just the same as any coin with a user, and a wallet, and a private key.

HOWEVER!!!

The new coins that are being created are locked! The private key to each one of these coins is not available. Once a human comes into the picture and solves a series of puzzles proving that the USER is IN FACT a HUMAN the final puzzle would reveal a key that would decrypt address/location that the new coins were created are in. This is how coins would enter into circulation. From then on they would function as a normal crypto.



Which one of these examples constitutes a TRUE  proof of human coin? Are they both proof of human?



If they are? How would you implement these puzzles?


please serious discussion I am really into this. There are tons of resources about this out there from cryptographer even before true crypto.

Nope. Captchas wont work either.
Have you seen mrai? Where they pay people to solve captchas and gain raiblocks.
How could that be different with that?
Even if they pay low some people will bite here specially to those who are looking for a job even if they pay low.

Yes there is now a coin that uses captcha to claim and the name of the coin is mrai,it is now very popular new algo that hundreds or even thousands of people are now claiming it but only the top 150 claimants can claim the rewards daily,for more info please check the xrb thread.

I think there's already a coin with the same mechanism, I just forgot its name

In this day and age scripts can be coded for a vast majority of things.

Two separate issues.

1) Algorithms that require human input are going to be very important. Artificial intelligence algorithms require constant human input. Not talking of course of the coins that claim ai to get investors, but of an actual ai coin in the future.

2) Distribution based on x per person rather than x per computing power a person owns etc. Coins that go in that direction also will have advantages in a lot of the world. Look at India's aadhar system that will include biometerics https://uidai.gov.in/

There actually was a coin called CaptchaCoin launched in 2013 that (supposedly) worked this way. It fizzled out pretty quickly I think.

What color is the water mate   in glass or in ocean?

I think the PoH cant stop rich to get richer cuz they can hire a humans to solve this, same like working. You know what is the salary in some parts of the world like China, India and so on .. ..... you cant mine a shit alone like every new coin.

Humaniq maybe with Proof of Face

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-ico-06042017-humaniq-discover-the-unbanked-1711764

We shall call it "Abacus Coin" and it requires proof-of-human-doing-physical-calculations-work. Because mining should involve actual calluses on actual hands.

this is really interesting. What about steganographic puzzles. Once solved you get coins? this would be POH

How about games like luminosity. Play games, get coins.

Any "mechanical" task such as captcha-solving would be outsourced to cheap labour in India.
What is genuinely "human"? That which cannot (yet) be automatized. And that is - what?
Creativity.

Therefore we already have "proof of human" coin, it's called Devcoin.
In Devcoin you earn coins by doing creative work.

Back on topic, I think the only possible way to do a "Proof of Human" coin is by using something that is unique to each human, but verifiable to be a human.  In other words, you can't just use a person's name and address, or social security number, because those could be faked and a headless decentralized system would be none the wiser.  The advantage to using such a system is that distribution and verification is incredibly simple:  Simply give each person an equal amount of coins, and let the currency inflate slowly along with the birthrate (since babies would also be given coins upon birth, unspendable until they turn 18 or something).

So, you have to have something that cannot be machine-faked, which is DNA.  But it can still be electronically faked, in that you could create an artificial DNA sequence.  How could the headless system verify that such a human actually exists?  With images!

To receive your initial distribution of coins, you have to give up a sample of DNA.  A scratch of skin cells off the back of your hand, perhaps.  Then, in order to spend your coins, you must verify that you are, in fact, the owner of said DNA.  Fingerprints are unique - perhaps a machine could match your fingerprints to your DNA.  Definitely not now, but 10, 20 years in the future?  Maybe.

But then, if a machine can match your DNA to your fingerprint, what is stopping someone else from grabbing a sample of your DNA, mapping it, and then figuring out what your fingerprints should look like?  And subsequently making a model of those fingerprints to be used on whatever is scanning the fingerprints, of course.

The problem with humans is, there's no one-way function for us.  If you know the fingerprints, you can discover the DNA.  If you know the DNA, you can discover the fingerprints.  Etc.  There is no human hash function.

If you spent a few seconds, you would discover that there are positives for the worker, even though the immediate loss of a job would be a negative.

1. Cars will become more affordable for the worker.
2. The worker will finally realize that his skill is no longer valuable, and that he must improve his skill or learn new skills.
3. The worker will find a new job doing something that a robot can't do.

Also, do you think that this worker's situation is confined to only workers? Everyone must deal with it. If the inventor does not continue innovating, he will no longer have anything to sell. If the factory owner does not innovate, some other company will put him out of business. As a software developer, I must constantly gain new knowledge and skills or risk becoming irrelevant.

Anyone that is not trying to improve themselves is just stagnating. I don't think stagnation should be rewarded, or even tolerated.