Topic: Why not solve scientific problems (Read 570 times)

I love this question. It's the classic "What are you doing? Writing. Well since you're not doing anything, can you mow the lawn, clean out the garage, and fix the faucet?".

Canada already cured cancer, but lo and behold, no profits in that.

We are solving a problem, you're just not seeing the forest for the trees. By the same token, why burn electricity to cure cancer instead of doing something worthwhile like getting an education in medicine and then being the lucky one to invent something which cures cancer. Western abuse of Occam's razor simplicity at its worst.

You're trying to evaluate solutions from a rhetorical and philosophical stance. Doesn't work. EVER.

Bitcoin is a solution. Think of it this way, why play with a bunch of wires and build the electric grid when you can do something that solves problems like plowing the field. Oh wait, electricity = farm machinery.

You are simply looking at it from a materialist progressive point of view. Supercomputer networks are networks controlled by a central brain. Bitcoin is a network of brains.

The real question is not "Why not solve problems instead of Bitcoin?", it's "How can Bitcoin type networks solve problems?"

Sorry, I just get tired of the Holy Purpose Model. Especially, since the Holy Purpose Model is both socially and structurally inefficient and constipated.

It's not random. The term mining is misleading, it is really closer to auditing, but it's just that there's a built-in finite duration, ever-decreasing reward for this auditing activity. What miners do is to solve a specific mathematical problem that's directly derived from the block of transaction they've audited. It's a bit like trying to solve a 50 digit combination lock by brute force, but the number of digits you have get correct is adjusted automatically every two weeks or so in such a way that a miner discovers an acceptable combination roughly once every ten minutes.

There are lots of scientific distributed computing networks that you can participate in.

There are many programs that already do solve those problems. But you can't run those and a miner at the same time.

Although the new ASICs are designed only to solve the bitcoin SHA256 hash so wont be much use for anything else.

While I think that would be helpful to science, I'm pretty sure it would destroy bitcoin as a currency seeing how like your example Folding@Home work units are  do not have a minimum difficulty but greatly varied by my understanding. Which in turn would mean that some people would get coins very very fast while other would get them much slower. On the other hand since bitcoin is pretty much hash breaking to get data (the transactions in said coin) it might be plausible to switch it to something that improves encryption and decryption. I maybe wrong though.

How about replacing the PoW from solving hash to solving for example Folding@Home work units instead. But it would need a central coordinator I think, which is a major cons.

Thanks this is very true I stand corrected.

As tony_357 suggests, who knows what will come of this type of research.

Doesn't this argument result in the end of all non-practical research?

Several hundred years ago, when people were looking up at the stars with a telescope, and plotting the movements of the stars and the planets - this had no practical use then.  So what if Mars seems to move differently than the other "wanderers" (which turns out to be planets).

So, if this argument was followed back then, we would not have discovered that the earth moves around the sun, learned about gravity, developed a branch of mathematics called Fourier Analysis (which is what is used in many other fields of physics, engineering, and communications).

There are many nice things which come from being able to solve difficult problems.

Somebody once said, the world only needed maybe 6 computers, or that there was no need for more than 640K of memory in a computer?

I was thinking this exact same thing.  A decentralized currency solves a lot of problems, but if it was based upon productive capacity rather than busy-work, it'd be more intrinsic IMHO.

There's a very small set of problems which are difficult to solve but easily verifiable. This is necessary to prevent cheating. I think there would be much more cheating in the distributed computing projects if there were $$$ at stake. However, I think your idea is on the right track. There are plenty of distributed computing projects out there which are more practically useful than, say, SETI. If there is a way to verify proof of work for something like protein folding in a decentralized way, I'm sure there's a niche for a "socially conscious" crypto-currency.

Bringing an unprecedented stateless nonpolitical currency to the world IS solving a world problem.  A HUGE world problem.  Much more worth solving than having a remote chance of finding alien communication in some random noise.  Mining is not just random busywork, there is a purpose.

Bitcoin is a ledger.  The purpose of mining is to quantify the world consensus for any given revision of the ledger so that nodes on the peer-to-peer network can reliably assess a level of confidence as to whether any given transaction record is in fact agreed upon by the rest of the world.

Hi,
So my understanding of BitCoin is it actually just solves seemingly random problems.
Wouldn't it be better to solve problems, process and analysis parts of the universe for www.theskynet.org or similar?
Cure cancer?
It is all dependant on huge amounts of computing power.  Seems like BitCoin is a good place to get it?

Please explain.