<doug:authbot.org> @jeffro256: As you said, PoW is quantum resistant already. I was thinking of ways to leverage that quantum resistance that we have with the PoW to constrain the ability to spend.

<doug:authbot.org> * For a payment transaction to be included in the blockchain it requires the power expended by all the miners processing the block. So a payment transaction is itself proof, or a receipt of power consumption.

<doug:authbot.org> * Monero currently has a proof-of-payment (txid, txkey,address).

<doug:authbot.org> * Is there a way to leverage such receipts as a requirement to spend without sacrificing privacy (of course there is the problem that you have to be able to make a payment before you can prove you made it.)[... more lines follow, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/wo3XuIQLZVlnMzBF ]

<jpk68:matrix.org> You mean like, "what nonce can be concatenated to this transaction's ID, such that the resulting hash is lower than a certain threshold"?

<jpk68:matrix.org> And then that threshold is presumably based on some sort of relay rule, like transaction fee amount or something

<jpk68:matrix.org> What current issue is this trying to solve, though?

<doug:authbot.org> @jpk68:matrix.org: The quantum computer threat.

<doug:authbot.org> Basically, if a proof-of-power is required before funds can be spent, a quantum computer no longer has an advantage of conventional computers.

<jpk68:matrix.org> What's stopping a QEA, which likely also has access to large amounts of classical compute power, from just calculating it on those machines? If a transaction can be constructed on a smartphone, it clearly also can be with a data centre

<doug:authbot.org> @jpk68:matrix.org: The proof-of-power is not a calculation.

<jpk68:matrix.org> How do you prove power consumption, then?