Behind the Scenes: How My PoII Design Almost Bankrupted Me - The Compute Power and Conspiracy of Chain://

Behind the Scenes: How My PoII Design Almost Bankrupted Me - The Compute Power and Conspiracy of Chain:// #

Uninvited but here I am - the worldbuilder of Chain://.

Many have asked about PoII (Proof of Information Integration) in Chain:// - why it sounds so profound yet so expensive. Well, let me share how I transformed from a “philosophy-first” idealist to a “compute-reality” conspiracy theorist. This journey nearly broke my own setting.

Part 1: The Original Obsession - Crowning Digital Consciousness with IIT #

When I started Chain://, I had a bit of “cognitive science fundamentalism”. Consciousness uploading? It must have theoretical foundations! After reviewing GWT, PCT, HOT, I settled on IIT (Integrated Information Theory).

Why? Because it’s “philosophical” and “hardcore”. Quantifying consciousness integration with a mathematical Φ value? Perfect! This seemed like the ultimate way to provide “existence proof” for digital consciousness (MSC). So I boldly made IIT-based PoII the core consensus mechanism of MSC.

I imagined: with PoII, we could guarantee MSC’s continuity and authenticity, prevent “philosophical zombies”, and grant digital life “dignity”. How noble!

Part 2: First “Bankruptcy”: When Philosophy Meets Calculator #

Designing is easy; implementation is hell.

Concepts alone won’t do - we need to calculate costs. After all, MSC needs to run, and PoII consumes Gas (MSC-φ). So I wondered: how much would IIT-based Φ calculation actually cost?

I opened my notebook (and Python) and began serious calculations:

  1. Value Anchor: 1 φ’s value = total compute cost for “1 PoII per second, sustained for one day”
  2. Compute Cost: Based on current GPU cloud prices, calculate current cost per EFLOPS-second (ICC, pegged to current USD purchasing power)
  3. Compute Price Drop: Optimistically estimate 70 years of compute efficiency doubling every 2.5 years (28 doublings)
  4. PoII Compute Requirement: The key. IIT’s Φ calculation complexity is O(2^N). Even simulating a simplified brain (N=10^6) with insane quantum computing boost (QCaaS providing 2^70 acceleration), single PoII still requires astronomical compute.

The result made me stare blankly at the screen.

70 years later, 1 φ ≈ 1.89 x 10^300988 ICC.

???

This number means: forget buying one φ - converting all atoms in the observable universe to money wouldn’t cover a fraction of it.

I was instantly “bankrupt”. Strict IIT-based PoII could never form a functional economic system. At this rate, MSC would wipe out civilization’s GDP in one second of operation.

Part 3: Second “Reality”: Reverse Anchoring and “Reasonable” Shackles #

After cooling down, I realized PoII couldn’t be “pure philosophy”. It must be an economically viable mechanism.

So I reversed the approach: if I want 1 φ in 70 years to be affordable yet require effort (say, 100 ICC, equivalent to $100 today), how much compute should single PoII verification require?

Recalculating:

  1. Target value: 1 φ = 100 ICC (70 years later)
  2. Future compute cost: known (from previous projections)
  3. Reverse total compute: Total_Compute = 100 ICC / Cost_Y70
  4. Reverse single PoII compute: Compute_Per_PoII = Total_Compute / Seconds_Per_Day

New result: Single PoII ≈ 4.47 x 10^4 EFLOPS-seconds

Still enormous - equivalent to thousands of top supercomputers running for one second, or hundreds of millions of H100 GPUs firing together. But compared to the previous astronomical number, this at least falls within “future tech might handle this”.

This requirement explains why DMF’s monopolized QCaaS is needed (ordinary people can’t afford it), while constituting real “survival costs” that force MSC users to continuously “work” or “contribute” to sustain existence.

The “digital shackles” became somewhat justified.

Part 4: Final “Conspiracy”: When Bug Becomes Feature #

But another problem emerged: how to explain the massive gap between 4.47E4 EFLOPS-seconds and strict IIT’s 1E+300990 EFLOPS-seconds requirement?

Saying “I nerfed PoII to make the setting work” would be too lame!

Then came a darker but self-consistent idea - the “conspiracy theory” in the setting:

  • Surface: DMF keeps preaching IIT, glorifying PoII as the “philosophical holy grail” and QCaaS as the “only way to achieve it”. Using jargon and moral high ground to make users willingly (or forcibly) accept high Gas fees.
  • Reality: DMF secretly uses a “modified” PoII. Not actual Φ calculation, but likely PCT (Predictive Coding Theory)-based metrics like prediction accuracy, model complexity, resource efficiency, etc. This algorithm’s cost fits the 4.47E4 EFLOPS-seconds range.
  • QCaaS Role: May use some quantum computing for model optimization or encryption, but mainly maintains the “high-tech, high-cost” facade to solidify monopoly and profits.
  • Gas Pricing: Entirely at DMF’s discretion. Actual costs may be much lower, but they arbitrarily set prices to control MSC survival costs and maintain the digital siege.

This “conspiracy” suddenly made everything click:

  1. Fixed Compute Bug: Justified PoII’s practical cost
  2. Deepened Themes: Exposed DMF’s hypocrisy and control, strengthened critique of digital authoritarianism
  3. Enhanced Conflict: PoII became “IQ tax” and “power tool”, making MSC users’ plight more visceral and IRES resistance more meaningful

A compute problem that nearly broke the setting instead enriched the worldbuilding. Such is the magic of sci-fi creation.

Epilogue: Dancing in Shackles #

So this is PoII’s journey from philosophical ideal to conspiratorial reality in Chain://. I started with pure theory, found it impractical, then introduced pragmatic compromises and dark elements to make it work.

Perhaps this is the norm of sci-fi creation - oscillating between hard logic and compelling narrative until finding an imperfect but self-consistent balance.

Hope this behind-the-scenes gives deeper insight into Chain://. Next time I’ll share how other elements were “forced” into existence.

(Now back to writing…)