• curious_one@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 years ago

    I believe you should be measuring some global events so that results can be independently verified across the globe. Maybe measurement of some cosmic radiation? That would then be proof of time. If there is some radiation source that is periodic and globally observable it could work?

    • AlmaemberTheGreat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      That’s what I meant.

      Although, cosmic radiation is problematic, because:

      1. How would you quantify it, to later automatically verify at what time a coin entered circulation
      2. Possibly other issues, such as the slight difference in the levels of cosmic radiation around the globe.

      But in general good idea

      • curious_one@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 years ago

        i think for verification each full node should be taking measurements as well. But would this approach even allow for consensus? All the miners would observe the same event at the roughly same time so how would you even reach consensus for who gets the reward? Maybe this wouldn’t work after all :(

    • blank_sl8@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      The thing about proof-of-work is that, while performing the work, you have to know about which block you’re creating. You aren’t doing generic work. You’re doing work that’s specific to the block data. If you wanted to double spend, you would have to re-do the work, because the work you did is only applicable to the exact block you mined.

      And therein lies the problem with using a globally observable event like you’ve described: It is not tied to any particular block. I can use the radiation data from the fifth of March to mine a block, then use the same data to mine a conflicting block. “Nothing at stake” problem is related.