See https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831... for Dijkstra's thoughts on indexing.

Or, even more challenging, an okapi on a recumbent ?!

Please fix title: Uses to Eat -> Used to Eat

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Toledo is a family a moderately strong tiny chess programs.

> The team is giving AI systems a week to solve the problems.

It might take a week to get their attention?!

> The answers will decrypt just before midnight on February 13.

So it's already too late for that:(

> The term “proof of work” is apt. The work is the proof. Finding a valid hash demonstrates that you did the computational work to find it.

This whole article equates Proof of Work with hashing.

But the term Proof of Work is more general than the particular instance used in Bitcoin (Hashcash).

Other forms of Proof of Work require finding a solution to a puzzle after fixing the header and nonce. For example, Cuckoo Cycle requires finding a 42-cycle in a huge bipartite graph.

> let weighted_reward = (volume_factor * 0.4) + (count_factor * 0.3) + 0.3; > MIN_BLOCK_REWARD + ((current_max - MIN_BLOCK_REWARD) * weighted_reward)

Making reward increase with tx count will strongly incentivize the miners to fill the blocks with dummy txs, needlessly wasting everyone's resources.

I agree with this so switching to a fee‑weighted bonus so only economically meaningful activity increases reward.

>let base_reward = MIN_BLOCK_REWARD + ((current_max - MIN_BLOCK_REWARD) * (total_fees / fee_target).clamp(0.0, 1.0));

That doesn't help (unless you burn a significant part of the fees), since the miner will just pay plenty fees on all the dummy txs that they simply end up paying to themselves.

Okay, now 35% of fees are clipped/burned. That directly addresses the concern because self‑fee recycling becomes clearly loss‑making, while miners still keep 65% of fees so fee incentives remain meaningful during demand spikes with 10‑second blocks and a 10–50 base reward range. ty for feedback btw