00:15:32 @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. 00:15:32 * 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. 00:15:32 * Monero currently has a proof-of-payment (txid, txkey,address). 00:15:32 * 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 https://mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/wo3XuIQLZVlnMzBF ] 00:21:24 You mean like, "what nonce can be concatenated to this transaction's ID, such that the resulting hash is lower than a certain threshold"? 00:21:44 And then that threshold is presumably based on some sort of relay rule, like transaction fee amount or something 00:23:23 What current issue is this trying to solve, though? 00:25:56 @jpk68:matrix.org: The quantum computer threat. 00:25:56 Basically, if a proof-of-power is required before funds can be spent, a quantum computer no longer has an advantage of conventional computers. 00:29:50 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 00:32:17 @jpk68:matrix.org: The proof-of-power is not a calculation. 00:37:56 How do you prove power consumption, then?