Talk:Proof of space

March 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_Space

This is the same article.

Proposed merge with Proof of Space

Covers same topic. Proof-of-Space is the larger article. Sjö (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support merger to here. The two articles are essentially identical. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Petr Matas 05:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Petr Matas 23:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Confusion of two concepts

The current state of the article talks about two different concepts and mixes them incorrectly together:

1. Proof of space: The prover must allocate a specified amount of memory for some time specified by the verifier or for the duration of some computation. Execution time is not supposed to constitute a limiting factor. This is quite similar to proof of secure erasure. See Bhupatiraju, Vivek: "MIT Proof of Space".
2. Memory-bound proof of work: The prover must perform some calculation, whose execution time is dominated by the memory access time. See Moderately Hard, Memory-bound Functions (doi:10.1145/1064340.1064341).

I do not rule out the possibility that these two concepts may be combined, but they should not be confused. Therefore I propose to move the material on memory-bound proof of work into the article Proof-of-work system. Petr Matas 01:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Tages are not meant to be long term, removing tag. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Examples of PoC coins, list BURST first

Not just because it is in alphabetic order. BURST is at the moment the only proof-of-capacity coin that is in use. SpaceMint is at the moment only in the stage of a proposed coin, Permacoin may have an implementation (https://github.com/input-output-hk/Scorex/wiki/Permacoin-Implementation), but has not been seen in the wild (https://coinmarketcap.com/all/views/all/) so far. If there are no objections I can do it and update a few outdated facts. LinguistManiac (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Closing the merger discussion and issue with header tag

Hi, I closed a merger discussion relating to this page and Proof-of-stake. I made some error when closing it and putting the tags on to the talk pages. The error is that the discussion link that is put in to the header is not linking to the talk page. It is rather leading to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-space#Proposed_merge_with_Proof_of_Space which is an error. Please assist me with fixing this and ping/notify me so i can learn how to fix it. Thank you! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 05:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Since I did not find a suitable merge discussion of the sort you are referring to in your comment, even in history, I simply deleted your two {{oldmergefull}} templates. If you still think there is a merge discussion somewhere, you can try again. Next time, remember that the parameter talk= would like to see a qualified Talk: page name, such as

talk= Talk:Proof-of-space#Proposed merge with Proof of Space

I hope this helps. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Proof-of-TimeTravel

The concept was formulated by Dziembowski et al.[1] in 2015 and independently by Ateniese et al.[2] ... PoSpace has been used in the Burstcoin cryptocurrency founded in August 2014. Of course Burstcoin is not relevant according to Wikipedia standards, so I assume someone here will come up with some long-winded semiotics discussion of the difference between "formulated" and "founded". LinguistManiac (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Proof-of-work system which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Filecoin use missing

Filecoin is not mentioned, but seems to use PoST--So9q (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)