[baddox]

> Mining (generating hashes) does not, to my knowledge, actually operate the network.

You're incorrect. The proof-of-work requirement is integral to the Bitcoin network, because it makes fraud unprofitable. The amount of computation required to create a block chain longer than the honest one should cost more than the potential benefits of doing so. That said, as far as I know, any proof-of-work algorithm could be used as long as a large portion of clients adopted it, so it should be possible to use work that is useful in itself.

[sliverstorm]

So what you are saying is that Bitcoin will always require a horrific amount of computational power, just to prevent fraudulent generation of blocks? I'm starting to like the idea of mainstream Bitcoin less and less... 1000 petaflops just to maintain the network? Does that not raise the eyebrow?

[baddox]

I don't think it's "horrific," and I think the phrase "just to prevent fraudulent generation of blocks" vastly understates the awesomeness of having a virtually fraud-proof transaction log without relying on a centralized party.

[sliverstorm]

Well, if Bitcoin goes mainstream it seems like we could expect it would require 51% of all computational power on the planet at all times, which would indeed be horrific as well as tragic, IMO.

Sure, the perfect currency is valuable. But is such a sheer brute-force approach to security the best we can do?

[baddox]

What makes you think it would require 51% of all computational power? That would only be true if there were no other valuable things to compute, which is very unlikely to be the case.