[PhantomGremlin]

Two things I haven't yet seen here in the comments:

1) Electricity used. This scheme

   only multiplies the computing requirements
   for a calculation by less than 100 fold

It's bad enough that bitcoin mining itself is so energy intensive, but now we're coming up with additional power-hungry schemes.

2) (Ab)use of the blockchain:

   Enigma stores that metadata in the bitcoin
   blockchain, the unforgeable record of messages
   copied to thousands of computers to prevent
   counterfeit and fraud in the bitcoin economy

So eventually the whole world will use the one true blockchain for "unforgeable records" of everything? Eventually the chain will grow by what, 1 GB per hour, 1 GB per minute, 1 GB per second?

[fineman]

1) It's not related to bitcoin energy usage, which is designed to be high. This is based on the current best science has to offer in making things cheap.

The 100x multiple is to the cost of normal computation. Normal, unsecured, visible to your hosting provider, etc, computation. Companies already pay huge amounts for securing computation so a pure mathematical way to do it that's only 100 times the base cost of the CPU time is actually a huge savings to many.

You don't have to run your whole webserver this way, just the payment processing pieces...

2) What will happen is pure guessing because it depends on the hidden motives of others via market (and other) dynamics.

But the options are roughly,

A) The bitcoin blockchain remains at today's general capacity. In this case the price per blockchain/byte will increase and people will use side-chains and "link" them back in as they feel appropriate. You will have the option of downloading sidechains you care about.

B) The bitcoin users decide on one of the proposals to increase the blockchain capacity dramatically - and all of these offer some form of prunability so you don't need to hold the GBs of stuff you don't care about in order to strongly verify the things you do care about (like the balance of someone who's paying you)...

C) Some other currency which solves these things really is the "one".

But these questions didn't need asking. They're needlessly critical - as if technologies should (or even could) all be invented at greater than 100% ROI just out of thin air, and as if market dynamics wouldn't handle things anyway. If this solution is too expensive, nobody will use it. There are no externalities involved here, nobody is getting a free lunch; they'll only pay for it if it helps them overall.

[oznathan]

Hi, co-creator here.

1) More electricity it used, but it has some benefits. What is the social and financial cost of data breaches and identity theft? Hopefully at scale a system like Enigma can help with that.

2) At scale, you are correct. Blockchain scaling is a problem that a lot of people are working on, hopefully it will be solved in one way or another. If it doesn't, we'll need to find another solution or Enigma will fail.

[gcmartinelli]

If capitalism is as good as they say, BTC entrepreneurs and miners should be pouring money into cleantech anytime now ;)

The second point is something I've asked myself without any clear answer. Interested too learning more about this.

[drdeca]

EDIT:

A better response than mine had already been posted by the time I finished writing mine. As such you may wish to skip reading my response. However, I'll let my response remain here anyway. /EDIT

1)

I'm not sure why this would have a power cost significantly comparable to bitcoin. This seems like the power use would be akin to using a computer which uses power inefficiently, which doesn't seem terrible.

It seems inevitable that a system that serves the same purpose would take more resources, seeing as the computation has to be done in multiple places, and as such, a relatively small constant factor doesn't sound terrible (not sure how one could hope for better. ).

It is not as if the programs which are written to run in web browsers now would have been written to allow as much inefficiency in equivalent desktop programs 14 years ago, right?

Does not sending an encrypted message to someone take a constant factor more time to send than it would to send it plaintext? (referring to time it takes to send and receive, not the time during actual transit)

2)

It uses a blockchain (bitcoin's) to store some data, but that would just store some transactions, and from what I can tell it shouldn't significantly increase the electricity required by the bitcoin network?

I guess it could contribute to blockchain size (I'm not sure how much data needs to be stored for the commitments.

re: "one true blockchain" :

I assume that if this were to be adopted in such numbers, either some scalability things would be added to bitcoin, or this or something like this would be transferred to some other more scalable blockchain, using something like hypercube chains or something like that. A program running using a system like this would be fine using just one of the subchains, and the people using it would mostly only have to keep track of that subchain (and I guess the chain that ties the subchains together), so because more subchains can be added whenever they are needed, the size of the subchain being used would presumably not grow at unacceptable rates.

notes:

I do not own any bitcoin. The only cryptocurrency I own any of is testnet ether, which is for a testnet. Additionally I have not made any wagers about the success of any cryptography technologies, and am not employed in any cryptography related field. I don't think I have any financial incentives to promote any particular view about any given cryptography technology.

[johnchristopher]

Couldn't such projects easily initiate and bootstrap their own blockchain when put in production ?