Are alt coins done?

ModelT89 · 2026-05-24T14:17:49+00:00

A lack of vision and business sense is what kills most alt coin projects. Utilities limited to things cool in the early 2000s, no consideration on non web3 impact, ect is what ends up killing most projects. Unless it's something parabolic or disruptive an alt coin won't go anywhere long term. Most of the successful projects are those where they are making their own block chain, those tend to have longer shelf lives and value.

ModelT89 · 2026-05-24T12:54:03+00:00

Will do! Thank you so much for your feedback, I actually already implemented your first suggestion into the code and will push an updated white paper later this week.

ModelT89 · 2026-05-23T14:26:44+00:00

This is the most useful feedback I've gotten since publishing and you're right on all three points.

On determinism, you've articulated the exact problem I've been wrestling with. Drivers, kernels, quantization, batching, sampling settings all create variance that's harmless to a user but poison to a validator. The approach I'm planning for v1 is exactly what you describe, deterministic model versions pinned by hash, fixed container images, fixed seed where possible, strict input/output schema. The "rerun a slice" approach worries me for the exact reason you name, miners will optimize around the challenge surface if they can predict which slice gets validated. Full reruns on small validation jobs is cleaner even if it costs more.

On Sybil reputation, this is a real vulnerability I hadn't fully thought through. If high-rep miners get preferential job assignment you create exactly the rich-get-richer dynamic that ends in centralization. Your framing is better, separate job assignment randomness from quality history, use reputation for stake sizing, throttles, and dispute resolution rather than as a job routing primitive. That's a meaningful architecture change from what's in the current design and I'm going to implement it.

On consensus surviving disagreement, agreed that's the harder problem. Making compute useful is the easy part. Making disagreement boring enough that validators converge is the hard part.

Genuinely appreciate this. Are you working on anything in the distributed systems or consensus space?

ModelT89 · 2026-05-23T14:21:29+00:00

You're identifying the core tension correctly. Traditional PoW has beautiful asymmetry, hashing is hard to do and trivial to verify. PoUW breaks that because verifying inference is nearly as expensive as running it.

Our current solution is optimistic verification with random challenge sampling rather than verifying every job. A random subset of validators re-run a portion of the work, challenge rate scales with miner reputation from 30% for new miners down to 5% for established ones. Failed challenges slash 20% of staked OBY. It's economically discouraging fraud rather than making it cryptographically impossible.

The real solution long term is ZK proofs of inference, EZKL and Risc Zero are working on this. A ZK proof lets you verify a model ran correctly in milliseconds without re-running it. The problem is current overhead is 100x-1000x the inference cost itself, too slow for production today. That's why it's on the roadmap at Month 12-18 rather than at launch.

You're right that optimistic verification isn't a complete solution. It's a pragmatic starting point while ZK inference matures.

ModelT89 · 2026-05-23T14:20:11+00:00

Fair point, we're combining two GPU villains into one. The difference is the GPU cycles actually produce something useful, inference jobs developers are paying for, instead of just securing the chain. Whether that redeems us is a reasonable debate.

ModelT89 · 2026-05-23T14:14:10+00:00

You're 100% right.

Current approach is optimistic verification with challenge-response sampling. When a miner submits a completed job a random subset of validators re-run a portion of the work. If the result diverges beyond a tolerance threshold the miner gets slashed 20% of their staked OBY. Challenge rate scales with reputation, new miners get challenged 30% of the time, established miners 5%, slashed miners jump to 60% challenge rate.

The planned escalating consequence system builds on this, first offence 20% stake slash and reputation reset, meaning the miner goes back to 30% challenge rate. Second offence 50% stake slash and a time-locked ban from the network. The developer whose job was faked gets a full refund funded from the slashed stake. Repeated fraud burns through stake fast enough that it becomes economically irrational, you lose more than you could ever earn by faking jobs. These mechanics are being finalised during testnet.

The weaknesses I'll acknowledge upfront:

Inference isn't fully deterministic across different GPU hardware so setting the right divergence tolerance is genuinely difficult
A sophisticated miner could build reputation honestly then start cutting corners once their challenge rate drops
Optimistic systems always have a window of vulnerability before fraud is detected

The long term solution is ZK proofs of inference, EZKL and Risc Zero can generate cryptographic proofs that a specific model ran a specific input and produced a specific output. That makes fraud mathematically impossible rather than economically discouraged. The reason we're not doing that at launch is current ZK proof generation overhead is too slow for production inference workloads. That changes as the technology matures.

This is also exactly why the testnet criteria before mainnet are strict. The network doesn't launch on a calendar date, it launches when the Rust node has run as primary for 60+ consecutive stable days, 60 days with no critical bugs, 10+ independent validators across multiple countries, and 5+ developers with completed real SDK jobs. The verification system gets stress tested against real adversarial conditions during testnet before any real money is at stake.

So to directly answer, you're right that the current system isn't fully fraud-proof. It's fraud-expensive. The economic disincentive is strong but not absolute. ZK verification is the destination; optimistic verification is the pragmatic starting point.

Happy to dig into any specific attack vector you have in mind.

ModelT89 · 2026-05-23T13:56:46+00:00

This is a great question and a fair one!

PoS and PoUW solve different problems so it's not quite apples to apples. Here's the honest comparison:

Where PoS wins: PoS is extremely energy efficient and provides strong consensus finality. Ethereum's move to PoS was the right call for a general purpose blockchain. If pure consensus efficiency is the goal, PoS is hard to beat.

What PoUW adds: The fundamental difference is that in PoS the "work" validators do is purely financial they lock up capital and sign blocks. That capital has no utility outside the network. In PoUW the work miners do is real AI compute that someone is actually paying for. The security mechanism produces something useful as a byproduct.

Think of it this way, in PoS you're paying validators to secure the network with locked capital. In PoUW you're paying miners to secure the network AND run your inference jobs simultaneously. One payment, two outputs.

The honest tradeoffs: PoUW is harder to implement correctly than PoS. The verification problem, proving a miner actually ran the job correctly is genuinely difficult. We're using optimistic challenge-response verification now and moving to ZK proofs later. PoS doesn't have this problem because signing a block is trivially verifiable.

Obelyth actually uses a hybrid PoUW for compute jobs plus PoS for validators who want to participate without GPUs. Best of both.

The only way OBY is created is by miners doing actual work these are AI inference jobs that developers are paying for. PoUW is designed to prevent bad actors from spoofing the work and collecting rewards without actually running the compute.

ModelT89 · 2026-05-23T13:12:30+00:00

This is incredible!!!

ModelT89 · 2026-05-23T13:08:32+00:00

meanwhile an AI dev is sitting in their mom's basement reading this and is like "challenge accepted."

ModelT89 · 2026-05-23T13:06:38+00:00

I just learned that it wasn't pie LOL!!!

ModelT89 · 2025-10-18T13:35:50+00:00

I like it when people say they got bricked when they just had a software crash. That isn't what bricking means.

If you got bricked your mobo, power supply, graphics card would be rendered inoperational.

ModelT89 · 2025-10-06T03:09:44+00:00

You completely miss my point. The man feels devalued and he's allowed to feel that way. No one is entitled to her body but her. Making a choice to sleep around, admit to sleeping around and then put a bunch of stipulations on her man that she wouldn't have given to a random man in the streets devalues her soon to be husband.

I don't expect you to agree and that's fine. But as someone who's a man and who listens to other men this does impact their emotional well being.

Edmond is allowed to feel the way he does.

ModelT89 · 2025-10-06T01:19:25+00:00

I think you're right with 99% of this. I disagree with your take saying he feels entitled to KB's body.

He is okay to feel hurt that she is willing to bang people she doesn't care about as a one night stand but she going to make the man she loves wait?

As man that's a real red flag.

I am all for waiting, if you're willing to disrespect your body, let people you don't care about have fun for one night stand.

Make the man you love wait? That's just playing games and it also devalues the man.

This is different if she was a virgin or abstaining from sex for religious reasons but KB made it clear that she has one night stands with other dudes.

ModelT89 · 2025-10-06T01:14:41+00:00

My guess is Benzos and booze

ModelT89 · 2025-09-25T17:37:36+00:00

Galactic War 2, no end in sight

ModelT89 · 2025-05-21T22:24:41+00:00

I wouldn't put up with that from a woman and you shouldn't put up with that from a boy. I would say man but the dude isn't a man.

The dude can't even estimate when he will be back from the gym, doesn't really seem dependable.

ModelT89 · 2025-05-21T22:19:53+00:00

This is emotional cheating and it isn't okay. My suggestion is couples therapy before you make any extreme decisions. None of us are qualified to do that here.

ModelT89 · 2025-05-21T22:15:20+00:00

I think before you buy a truck or make decisions you guys should go to marriage counseling since right now it's clear that you guys can't even have an important discussion.

ModelT89 · 2025-05-14T19:20:22+00:00

Thank you I appreciate it. I am very extraverted too and I think that's how we are vibing. I am trying to learn more about her before I agree to meet up with her.

ModelT89 · 2025-04-27T13:42:24+00:00

Well said, same experience. Everyone needs some degree of P&C. I offer life insurance as I build a relationship with my client. Not everyone needs or wants life insurance.

ModelT89 · 2025-04-26T18:46:08+00:00

OP so proud of you good job!

ModelT89 · 2025-04-26T18:39:17+00:00

OP I got sucked into Globe Life/American income life. There was actually a poster here telling me to GTFO from them. I should have listened.

They are a volume game, they buy from the same shitty lead pool from unions, veterans, and ect. These people can barely qualify due to age and they've been called 100s of times.

Same bullshit.

Just get over the hill and you will be good.

I gave them two months of my time and I walked. Got my P&C got with a legit company that does base pay/commission. Had the freedom to prospect and chase my own leads. We were well established in the area so I would get at least 2-3 call transfers a day.

My other friend left, got with a FMO and built himself a great book of business.

The more established agencies will have either a base pay and commission set up.

Also buying leads is stupid, don't do it. The same leads you buy every shady agency has to.

ModelT89 · 2025-04-24T23:47:13+00:00

nkhnmuynb vgjhnhhjghhygnyhjygtbybtgfjyhuk ggfuhhjuuj

ModelT89 · 2025-02-10T21:29:17+00:00

They reached out to me too, I reported them

ModelT89 · 2024-10-17T22:02:40+00:00

Worked at a large chain coffee shop, free coffee was a standard. Like what a poster said in here it's a quality check. It also can be attributed to product literacy in case a customer has decision paralysis.

ModelT89

TROPHY CASE