[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.