Re:Gridcoin: An open-source cryptocurrency that rewards volu...
by Forbo on Tuesday February 23, 2021 @09:39AM
(#26237773)
Considering the number of supercomputers that have been constructed since the days of ENIAC, I don't think we'll be running out of scientific computing problems any time soon. And if we somehow do manage to run out of computing problems, then I guess we've already succeeded.
Re:Gridcoin: An open-source cryptocurrency that rewards volu...
by fsflover on Tuesday February 23, 2021 @09:53AM
(#26237951)
But can you change the task underlying your cryptocurrency without breaking the network?
Re:Gridcoin: An open-source cryptocurrency that rewards volu...
by ilammy on Tuesday February 23, 2021 @10:08AM
(#26238112)
If the network has been designed for this in the first place – why shouldn't you be able to?
With Gridcoin you can participate in a number of eligible BOINC projects [1] and get rewards for computing on any of them. The network can add or remove projects.
Re:Gridcoin: An open-source cryptocurrency that rewards volu...
by zekrioca on Tuesday February 23, 2021 @01:52PM
(#26241193)
I'm wondering why you think supercomputers are actually built for. Besides that, the type of computational problems that are submitted to and that BOINC helps solving are different to those that a supercomputer solves. The former (known as High Throughput Computing, HTC) is concerned mainly -- as the name suggests -- with throughput, while the latter (High Performance Computing, HPC) with speed/latency.
There is a reason why Cloud providers do not yet have "real" HPC offerings (i.e., performance-wise), even though with all the marketing they do to appear otherwise..
Re:Gridcoin: An open-source cryptocurrency that rewards volu...
by Forbo on Tuesday February 23, 2021 @06:46PM
(#26244641)
Sorry I didn't specify. There's still plenty of demand for HTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_distributed_computing_...
What happens if you have a coin based on "useful work" and you "solve" the problem you were hoping to solve. Now a lot of "miners" leave the network, presumably because they were only there to help solve that particular problem. Now you have a weak system, and a system subject to 51% attacks by adversarial miners, and therefore not a good money/coin.
I don't see how HN commenters (in large part) don't get this. It's the Single-responsibility Principle, just in a different context.