IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2015 - 49

the brain. Additionally smart contracts might be incorporated as a
means of extending the heretofore
narrowband break-down of supercomputing tasks into other more
complicated problems. In general in supercomputing, there is an
opportunity to make progress on
the issue of tackling more complex
tasks, reformulating supercomputing and desktop grid computing
problems into higher orders of
complexity and away from simple
parallelization [14]. Blockchainarchitected models might facilitate
this. Problems might be fashioned
into a mining-compatible format to
take advantage of the otherwise
wasted computing cycles of mining, or organized into economically-enabled remunerative structures
for computation.

mining ecologies, where different
functions within the same ecosystem might provide mining services
for each other. The concept is that
of a self-mining ecosystem or crossfunctional mining within a symbiotic system. Different functions are
separate enough from each other
for mining independence, yet also
have a shared objective in the overall health of the system. The three
functions in the input-processingoutput architecture could mine for
each other. Efficiency, trustability, and independence are the hallmarks of a mining operation. The
structure of cryptocurrency mining is such that it is purposefully a
wasteful operation. Good agents
conduct wasteful computational efforts to demonstrate a proof
of work (proof of having solved a
computational problem), and bad
agents are deterred because of the
proof of work requirement.
Instead in blockchain-based
systems for other types of operations like blockchain thinking and
smarthome IOT systems, the mining requirement could be different.
In these contexts, mining could
be implemented differently such
that its administrative contribution
would still be sound, while taking
into account the fact that the profiles and incentives for bad players
is reduced in these systems. Mining
could be connected to the concept
of a DAC (distributed autonomous
corporation). Inherent in the structure of a DAC is first, its governance
constitution posted openly to a
blockchain for inspection; two, its
need to raise funds to conduct its
operations; and three, its attempt
to earn revenue from providing
whatever services it can provide.
The brain as a DAC has these same
requirements, needing to sustain
itself by running its own economy
to earn revenue and spend it on
necessary expenditures; engaging

Self-Mining Brain Ecologies
and Proof of Intelligence
Mining is a core architectural feature of blockchain processing,
where a mining operation is necessar y to record transactions.
Independent miners confirm that
transactions are bonafide and
enter them into the public ledger,
for which they receive remuneration. An obvious question arises
as to how mining would work in
blockchain thinking. Since the need
to deter bad players is different,
mining cycles might not need to
be so wasteful, and maybe instead
could be symbiotic. The context
is different in blockchain thinking, and does not require such discrete transactions and all of the
checks-and-balances of a monetary
system where theft incentives are
high. Thus the same transactionrecording functionality might be
provided by another mechanism,
such as high-speed secure messaging as has been proposed for
smarthome Internet-of-Things (IOT)
networks [3]. Another idea is selfdecember 2015

∕

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

in some sort of productive effort
to support itself. Thus the brain as
a DAC has each input-processingoutput architectural element in
need of supporting itself, possibly
through a cooperative mining ecology in the overall blockchain thinking system.
The notion of self-mining ecologies is perhaps more readily conceivable in the IOT smarthome
context. In this case different
smarthome functions could mine
for each other. For example the
bathroom sensors mine (e.g.,
administer the transactions of) the
kitchen sensor activities and vice
versa or (better) round robin so
any one ecology does not know
which other will be mining for it. All
functions are embodied as DACs or
Dapp agents that need to self-fund
to sustain, where they are independent yet have incentive to cooperate within the overall smarthome
system. Sensor mining colonies
in IOT smarthome have incentive
to accurately record the transactions of the other function because
they are both part of bigger entity.
Despite not being fully independent, the different sensor colonies
are separate enough, and have
an incentive to only record truthful transactions because first, their
reputation in the system matters,
and two, they need trustful mining operations within the system to
have their transactions processed
for their own survival. Thus a trust
ecosystem is built. If more independence were deemed necessary,
different smarthomes could mine
for each other, or mining could be
a rotating service as previously
mentioned. Self-mining ecologies
could be implemented in the Storj
model, where requests-for-service
are rebid dynamically. On a daily
basis, different smarthome IOT
sensor functions could bid for mining services within the smarthome

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2015