[jnbiche]

Proof of work is the most secure way we have by far of running a decentralized currency. I am hopeful that a better, more energy-efficient method will be developed, but until then, I think advancing the state of the art is worth the energy cost.

It's not obscene to me that a truly global currency, that is decentralized and not controlled by any government, would cost a tenth of the energy output of a modest-sized power plant.

[mjevans]

That's my main issue with bitcoins (aside from how they're marketed to anyone; it is most definitely NOT anonymous!).

Instead of 'proof of work' it should require actual, /useful/ work. I think it should be a mix of work /types/ to promote general purpose computing, instead of ASICs. Imagine if a comity decided, and the owners of existing coins voted on, what work was worthy of being included. Folding proteins for medical research, SETI, attacking DRM/bootloader encryption keys... things that benefit the world.

[phoogathrw]

Ok, yeah that would be nice. But no one has figured out how to securely do productive work for proof of work. In fact, there are pretty good reasons to believe that it may even be impossible to create a secure yet productive proof of work algorithm.

[MikeNomad]

It almost sounds like you are talking about something like SETI@Home...

[phoogathrw]

You can't use SETI@home for proof of work. The work target has to somehow involve a fully random process.

Lots of very smart people have tried this and failed. The best effort so far has been to find prime numbers, and even that turned out to not be a robust proof of work.

[CyberDildonics]

I will tell you what I tell everyone who says the same thing:

You are free to create that proof of work system and you can see who buys your coin.

Now, if you piggy back on something people are already doing, then you might have something.

[ant6n]

1GW is a large sized power plant.