RandomX

With micropayments, the server owner makes 1 million requests times 0.05 cents = ~$500 The status quo with those js PoW pages doesn't really benefit the server owner at all, it's wasted energy. I mean proof of work is always wasted energy, but I figure it's better to kill two birds with one stone. CoinHive was one example of this. (I think this is a correct link? https://github.com/cazala/coin-hive). Although I think ideally you would want to have some sort of browser plugin or app that runs on bare metal instead of a proof-of-work in the browser, because RandomX is designed such that it's slow when implemented in JS (https://github.com/tevador/RandomX/blob/master/doc/design.md)

Monero's RandomX is an interesting PoW scheme one designed to be optimized for CPUs. Here is an interesting read about its design https://github.com/tevador/RandomX/blob/master/doc/design.md Chia uses a very memory-hard PoW system and is usually mined on SSDs. I've seen a lot of "useful PoW" cryptocurrencies, but they tend to not pan out. For example Gridcoin is just a Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrency with a program that hands out GRC to BOINC contributors.

SHA-256 PoW will probably work until it doesn't (if bots choose to invest in ASICs, or services that offer this pop up). Also users may be at a disadvantage as JS crypto would not be optimized for PoW (for example lack parallel crypto capabilities or context switching between calls). One advantage a PoW "CAPTCHA" system holds is that the service operator can change the algorithm whenever they want. This may make an ASIC approach too risky to bother with. The JS<>ASM crypto bridge would nevertheless require some optimization from the browser developers. Some cryptocurrencies which aim for ASIC resistance create PoW algorithms that would require re-implementation of a significant fraction of the the CPU die to be a viable ASIC attack vector. An example of that would be randomx[1]. Using it for in-browser PoW would require native support as

This is not true for all crypto coins. A small proportion of mining hash functions are deliberately designed to thwart ASICs, e.g. https://github.com/tevador/RandomX. It's a cat-and-mouse game, though: CryptoNight was designed to fulfill the same role, but ultimately failed: https://monerodocs.org/proof-of-work/cryptonight/.

Equihash (Birthday Problem): Memory Hardness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equihash RandomX (Execution of a random program): Memory Hardness (Inc. cache sizes), Speculative Execution/Branching, ILP, some sort of chaining https://github.com/tevador/RandomX/blob/master/doc/design.md Edit: these are examples of CPU-bound PoW. But the general idea with PoW is that you have some hash-like function H() with no known inverse function such that the only feasible way to determine the output is just running the function. The client runs H(x) with a different input x every time. If the output is a high enough number, the server lets the client though. The server runs H() to verify, and this is easy to parallelize. But in order to get through the server, the client must run H() many times on average. Also server provides a salt to prevent the clien

Those are protocols, not necessarily cryptocurrencies[0][1]. They were originally designed as improvements to the bitcoin network, but that never came into fruition due to stubborn bitcoiners like you who refuse to improve the network. The Cryptonote[2] and Zerocoin[3] whitepapers were published back in 2013/2014 and made some pretty important security improvements to the bitcoin network. I suggest giving them a read. Many of the systems that were once designed for Bitcoin, such as P2Pool now work on projects like cryptonote[4]. We have also designed a proof-of-work system that is completely CPU-bound (you can mine it on your home computer as satoshi intended)[5]. Also, the cryptonote/zerocoin-derived cryptocurrencies are hardly shitcoins seeing as they have effectively displaced Bitcoin's original use-case as of this year. [0] https://en

Can you elaborate on why you chose SHA256 as the hash function? Attackers aren't exactly limited to web apis, and SHA265 is known to be trivially parallelizable on a GPU. RandomX is one such example[0], which reminds me of a similar initiative called RPC-Pay. [0]: https://github.com/tevador/RandomX [1]: https://www.monerooutreach.org/stories/RPC-Pay.html

The term for describing is memory hard functions. RandomX[0] is one such example where GPU parallelism does not net them a large advantage over CPUs. [0]: https://github.com/tevador/RandomX

Consider using RandomX instead. https://github.com/tevador/RandomX This would tie the algo to CPU based compute and thus knock out ASIC and GPU solutions.

RandomX has some mechanisms to discourage cryptojacking botnets: https://github.com/tevador/RandomX#does-randomx-facilitate-b...

Mining is always a rat race against the rest of the network. Although this article makes me hopeful for alternative PoW solutions like RandomX[1] that seek to combat the advantages specialized mining hardware altogether. [1] https://github.com/tevador/RandomX

Monero uses RandomX as its hash algorithm, which is based on random code excecution and optimised for CPUs. https://github.com/tevador/RandomX

Designed to be CPU mined: https://github.com/tevador/RandomX

Monero's PoW algorithm is RandomX [1], which is optimized for CPU mining. While it is possible to mine with GPUs, it is significantly slower and unprofitable. [1] https://github.com/tevador/RandomX/blob/master/doc/design.md

Monero has more extensive ASIC-countermeasures in place: https://github.com/tevador/RandomX