[jrm4]

I definitely think it matters. The metaphor of "some moron pulling a slot machine over and over and over" (which is what I use) is more accurate and I think better represents what's actually happening than something like "solving," which evokes the image of smart person (or machine) sitting down and using their brain to discover useful information. When you say "solve" it implies that the information that is produced by the process is inherently valuable.

[hunter-gatherer]

I agree with this point for the same reason; what matters is how people interpret it. Of course if I'm talking to a CS type I can go right into the details. The analolgy I use with laymen is solving a large rubiks cube by randomly moving pieces instead of using any other sophisticated methods. Somebody please correct my if I'm wrong as I haven't been in the cryptocurrency space for a minute, but I believe most of the 'solving' is just a nonce increment that is then hashed with the previous block header, current block, and maybe a couple other things.

I've noticed that whenever I assert that a 'complex mathematical problem' is being solved people tend to think of an ever-growing algebraic equation.

[osigurdson]

The only problem with the rubik's cube analogy is that it may suggest that there are more optimal methods to solve it and they just aren't being used.

[hunter-gatherer]

Yes, I agree. In real life I emphasize the bit I said about "randomly moving pieces", and explain that it is a feature built into the protocol. Of course there is a lot of mathematic handwavery, but people seem to get it after the fact. I've also learned that most people don't actually realize there are more optimal ways to solve rubiks cubes anyways.

[yencabulator]

Worse; if someone came up with an efficient means of solving this particular "Rubik's Cube", the cryptocurrency people would be in a rush to move away from that, and find an alternate lottery where only dumb luck helps.

[NiloCK]

A lot of textbook exercises begin with a prompt like "solve for x", where x has no existence outside the scope of each given exercise. The information that is produced has no inherent value, but I'd be surprised to hear many people object to this usage of "solve".

[cinntaile]

Well it is valuable. You get to include the pending transactions in a block and you get rewarded for solving the puzzle.

[jrm4]

This is what I was trying to get to with "inherently." The information ITSELF that is yielded by the process is 100% arbitrary and not valuable, i.e. relays no additional useful information about the world (e.g. the boiling point of some new liquid or something), like many would think of when we think of people doing math to solve things.

[cinntaile]

I totally understood that you tried to define valuable in such a way to exclude cryptocurrency mining, as you can see below however it's not easy to create a definition like that. It also begs the question why that arbitrary definition of valuable is more correct than another arbitrary definition that excludes something else instead...

> valuable, i.e. relays no additional useful information about the world (e.g. the boiling point of some new liquid or something)

Theoretical mathematicians don't provide anything useful according to your definition.

[jrm4]

Again, we're looking for a good definition for explaining it to laypeople, and I don't find it that difficult. "Pulling a slot machine" or the one from the "solving Sudokus" both work pretty well.

The theoretical mathematician definition isn't very good either because I think enough people get that the novelty has some kind of inherent value that doing something repetitive like the above does not?