[QUOTE=Prime95;554960]Right now, the biggest weakness in the whole proof scheme is someone infiltrating the server's SQL database. Of course, if someone did that they could wreak all kinds of havoc.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. And this isn't a risk introduced by the proof mechanism.

If such a breach was discovered all work would have to be redone from the date of initial access.

[QUOTE=Prime95;554960]In short, no. The server's work is pretty modest -- about 2000 multiplications. But, the key benefit it provides is security. Part of it's work makes it impossible to fake a certification -- even if you have the complete original proof file. If this critical step were farmed out then faking certifications would be easy -- all you would need to do is collude with the person who did the farmed out server work.

Right now, the biggest weakness in the whole proof scheme is someone infiltrating the server's SQL database. Of course, if someone did that they could wreak all kinds of havoc.[/QUOTE]

There could be regular backups of the database files done (I think it is possible, correct me if I am wrong) and sent to trustable people for storing (like nuclear codes in movies).

[QUOTE=Viliam Furik;555028]There could be regular backups of the database files done (I think it is possible, correct me if I am wrong) and sent to trustable people for storing (like nuclear codes in movies).[/QUOTE]

There is some serious talent behind this project.

Trust that backups are part of that seriousness... :wink:

[QUOTE=chalsall;555067]There is some serious talent behind this project.

Trust that backups are part of that seriousness... :wink:[/QUOTE]

Then the problem of the database being hacked is not that big, is it?

[QUOTE=Viliam Furik;555096]Then the problem of the database being hacked is not that big, is it?[/QUOTE]
Indeed, if the hacking is detected quickly enough ... otherwise there will be a lot of wasted work

Seventeen or Bust and other Sierpinski problems were switched to fast DC. At VDF depth 7.