The problem with seti@home -like solutions is that verifying correctness is generally no cheaper than full rebuild. Therefore, the untrusted computers bring very little added value. (They can distribute the content signed by trusted people, but distribution isn't much of a problem in our case, IMHO.)
On 01/22/2015 01:29 PM, Wout Mertens wrote:
Then you could do something like, have 1000 builders, and if 501 builders get the same output hash for a derivation, it gets accepted on the public ledger of input/output hashes.
I'm not sure about such schemes either. It isn't very economical to build everything 1000-times. I do see the bitcoin-like inspiration (I guess), but I wouldn't apply it here, at least not in this way. (Do we want to give most decision power to those who make most claims on the build results? Even if we extend them with some additional proof-of-work?)
Vladimir
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
