Twitter acquired Threader! Learn more

+ Your AuthorsArchive @Foone Hardware / software necromancer, collector of Weird Stuff, maker of Death Generators. (they/them) ko-fi: Oct. 14, 2021 3 min read

look I don't want to suggest any uses for the borkchong because I believe it's a technology used primarily for evil, but you know what? you could TECHNICALLY use it for (tool assisted) speedrunning

so traditionally blerkcrimp technology uses proof-of-work in the form of calculating hashes or moving bits around lots of hard drive space or RAM. basically stuff that's hard to calculate but easy to verify, right?

but what you could do is build a bingchon where the proof-of-work is a demo file.
Like, say, a playthrough of Doom episode 1

every node can verify it by loading up Doom and playing back the demo, and confirming it beats Doom. this can be done at high speed, and significantly faster than it takes to create a whole new speedrun of Doom

and you have the nodes only accept a new demo file if it beats doom faster than the current record, represented by the last bock on the chan.

so you would mine a new DoomCoin by "simply" submitting a run of Doom that beats the game faster than the current record.

so in order to make money off this chain, people would have to brute force optimizations to current runs, or research new speedrunning strats

probably the former, which is why berkchomp always turns into a black hole of electricity and silicon

you also would inevitably incentivize finding ways to beat Doom in ways that any reasonable speedrunner would consider cheating.

for example, finding a memory exploit that lets you hack the VM running Doom and incorrectly report how fast it beat it

or, heck, hack the VMs by submitting runs that exploit Doom's playback and instead install a bertcon miner

BASICALLY the tl;dr is that this is a bad idea.
but that doesn't mean it's an unworkable idea. it could be done, it just probably shouldn't

besides, we all know if someone was going to build a speedruncoin the game of choice wouldn't be Doom, it'd be Mario 64

proof-of-work is based on time completed plus the number of A presses and half-A presses

this was inspired by this:

anyway here's the thing: although you could technically do this, what have you built over a centrally managed system like ?

well you've made it less efficient, that's for sure. you've decentralized it which is arguably a good thing. but you've also removed human decision making, which is definitely not a good thing

one of the things that sites recording records like  and  do is have humans check and verify runs, because otherwise it's only a computer validating them

and if we've learned anything about how computers work it should be that if you set up a system which enforces rules A, B, and C, people will immediately find the situations those rules do not cover and exploit that ambiguity

this isn't new, this was a big part of the point of the "3 laws of robotics" stories, and those are from 1942

and humans are good (well, better, at least) at these sorts of ambiguous situations. you see a lot of cases where speedruns have community-accepted guidelines, like "you have to play on version X" or "you can't use the Y amiibo"

and cases where there are multiple different separate speedruns for the same game. You'll have things like any%, 100%, any% glitchless, etc.
This is because humans looked at the runs and decided it made sense to have multiple categories.

encoding these kinds of rules into the code running your borkchomp means that you're enshrining them into every client and you also have to be very sure they're correct and you haven't overlooked anything

so to summarize, if you do this, you will not make the situation any better, you'll incentivize people to find exploits in the system rather than the game you wanted them to, and the only benefit is that some people might be able to make some money off other people with it

so obviously it's a good idea and we should do it immediately

Foone's 3 laws of computers:
1: A computer may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2: A computer must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the 1st Law.

3: A computer must play Doom as long as such playing does not conflict with the 1st or 2nd Law.

You can follow @Foone.


Tip: mention @threader on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Follow Threader