温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.bee.com/vi/57771.html
点击访问原文链接

In-depth analysis of decentralized AI reasoning: How to strike a balance between security and performance | Bee Network

进入原网站 导航首页
In-depth analysis of decentralized AI reasoning: How to strike a balance between security and performance | Bee Network Login Tin tức thịnh hành Nền tảng khởi chạy meme Các tác nhân trí tuệ nhân tạo (AI) DeSci TopChainExplorer Dành cho Newbee Tiền xu 100 lần Trò chơi Ong Trang web cần thiết ỨNG DỤNG Phải Có Người nổi tiếng về tiền điện tử DePIN Tân binh cần thiết Máy dò bẫy Công cụ cơ bản Trang web nâng cao Trao đổi Công cụ NFT CHÀO, Đăng xuất Vũ trụ Web3 Trò chơi Ứng dụng phi tập trung (DApp) Tổ ong Nền tảng phát triển QUẢNG CÁO Tìm kiếm Tiếng Anh Nạp xu Đăng nhập Tải xuống Đại học Web3 Trò chơi Ứng dụng phi tập trung (DApp) Tổ ong QUẢNG CÁO trang chủ•Phân tích•Văn bản chính In-depth analysis of decentralized AI reasoning: How to strike a balance between security and performancePhân tích5 tháng trước更新Wyatt 20.320 5 Table of contents
True “decentralization” Blockchain and Proof of Reasoning How it actually works Security and performance trade-offs Optimize space When we started building Gonka , we had a vision: What if anyone could run AI inference and get paid for it? What if we could harness all that unused computing power instead of relying on expensive centralized providers?

The current AI landscape is dominated by a handful of large cloud providers: AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud control the majority of the world’s AI infrastructure. This centralization creates serious problems that many of us have experienced firsthand. Control of AI infrastructure by a handful of companies means they can arbitrarily set prices, censor undesirable applications, and create a single point of failure. When OpenAI’s API went down, thousands of applications crashed with it. When AWS experienced an outage, half the internet stopped functioning.

Even “efficient” cutting-edge technologies aren’t cheap. Anthropic previously stated that training Claude 3.5 Sonnet cost “tens of millions of dollars,” and while Claude Sonnet 4 is now generally available, Anthropic hasn’t yet released its training costs. Its CEO, Dario Amodei, previously predicted that training costs for cutting-edge models will approach $1 billion, with the next wave of models reaching billions. Running inference on these models is equally expensive. For a moderately active application, a single LLM inference run can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars per day.

Meanwhile, the world has a vast amount of computing power sitting idle (or being used in meaningless ways). Think of Bitcoin miners burning electricity to solve worthless hash puzzles, or data centers running below capacity. What if this computing power could be used for something truly valuable, like AI inference?

A decentralized approach can pool computing power, lowering capital barriers and reducing single-supplier bottlenecks. Instead of relying on a few large companies, we can create a network where anyone with a GPU can participate and get paid for running AI inference.

We know that building a viable decentralized solution will be incredibly complex. From consensus mechanisms to training protocols to resource allocation, there are countless pieces that need to be coordinated. Today, I want to focus on just one aspect: running inference on a specific LLM . Just how difficult is that?

What is true decentralization? When we talk about phi tập trung AI inference, we mean something very specific. It’s not just about having AI models running on multiple servers, but about building a system where anyone can join, contribute computing power, and be rewarded for honest work.

The key requirement is that the system must be trustless . This means you don’t have to trust any single person or company to run the system correctly. If you’re letting strangers on the internet run your AI model, you need mật mãgraphic guarantees that they’re actually doing what they claim to be doing (at least with a sufficiently high probability).

This trustless requirement has some interesting implications. First, it means the system needs to be verifiable : you need to be able to prove that the same model and the same parameters were used to generate a given output. This is particularly important for smart contracts that need to verify that the AI responses they receive are legitimate.

But there’s a challenge: the more verification you add, the slower the entire system becomes, as network power is consumed by verification. If you completely trust everyone, there’s no need for verification reasoning, and performance is almost identical to centralized providers. But if you trust no one and always verify everything, the system becomes incredibly slow and uncompetitive with centralized solutions.

This is the core contradiction we have been working to resolve: finding the right balance between security and performance .

Blockchain and Proof of Reasoning So how do you actually verify that someone ran the correct model and parameters? Blockchain becomes an obvious choice — while it has its own challenges, it remains the most reliable way we know of to create an immutable record of events.

The basic idea is fairly straightforward. When someone runs inference, they need to provide proof that they used the correct model. This proof is recorded on the blockchain, creating a permanent, tamper-proof record that anyone can verify.

The problem is that blockchains are slow. Really, really slow. If we tried to record every step of reasoning on-chain, the sheer volume of data would quickly overwhelm the network. This constraint drove many of our decisions when designing the Gonka Network.

When designing a network and thinking about distributed computing, there are multiple strategies to choose from. Can you shard a model across multiple nodes, or keep the entire model resident on a single node? The primary limitations come from network bandwidth and blockchain speed. To make our solution feasible, we chose to fit a full model on a single node, though this may change in the future. This does impose a minimum requirement for joining the network, as each node needs sufficient computing power and memory to run the entire model. However, a model can still be sharded across multiple GPUs belonging to the same node, giving us some flexibility within the constraints of a single node. We use vLLM, which allows customization of tensor and pipeline parallelism parameters for optimal performance.

How it actually works Therefore, we agreed that each node hosts a complete model and runs full inference, eliminating the need for coordination across multiple machines during the actual computation. The blockchain is used only for record-keeping. We only record transactions and artifacts used for inference verification. The actual computation occurs off-chain.

We want the system to be decentralized, without any single central point directing inference requests to network nodes. In practice, each participant deploys at least two nodes: a network node and one or more reasoning (ML) nodes. The network nodes are responsible for communication (including a chain node connecting to the blockchain and an API node managing user requests), while your ML nodes perform LLM inference.

When an inference request arrives on the network, it reaches one of the API nodes (acting as a “transfer agent”), which randomly selects an “executor” (an ML node from a different participant). To save time and parallelize blockchain logging with the actual LLM computation, the transfer agent (TA) first sends the input request to the executor and records the input on-chain while the executor’s ML node is running inference. Once the computation is complete, the executor sends the output to the TA’s API node, while its own chain node records a verification artifact on-chain. The TA’s API node transmits the output back to the client, which is also recorded on-chain. Of course, these records still contribute to overall network bandwidth constraints.

As you can see, blockchain recording neither slows down the start of the inference computation nor the time it takes for the final result to be returned to the client. Verification of whether the inference was completed honestly occurs later, in parallel with other inferences. If the executor is caught cheating, they lose the entire epoch’s reward, and the client is notified and receives a refund.

The final question is: What is included in the artifact, and how often do we verify our reasoning?

Security and performance trade-offs The fundamental challenge is that security and performance are at odds with each other.

If you want maximum security, you need to verify everything. But that’s slow and expensive. If you want maximum performance, you need to trust everyone. But that’s risky and opens you up to all sorts of attacks.

After some trial, error, and parameter tuning, we found an approach that attempted to balance these two considerations. We had to carefully tune the amount of verification, the timing of verification, and how to make the verification process as efficient as possible. Too much verification, and the system becomes unusable; too little verification, and the system becomes insecure.

Keeping the system lightweight is crucial. We maintain this by storing the top k next- token probabilities. We use these to measure the likelihood that a given output was indeed generated by the claimed model and parameters, and to capture any tampering attempts, such as using a smaller or quantized model, with sufficient confidence. We will describe the implementation of the inference verification procedure in more detail in another post.

At the same time, how do we decide which inferences to verify and which not? We chose a reputation-based approach. When a new participant joins the network, their reputation is 0, and 100% of their inferences must be verified by at least one participant . If a problem is found, the consensus mechanism will ultimately determine whether your inference is approved, or your reputation will be lowered, and you may be kicked off the network. As your reputation grows, the number of inferences that need verification decreases, and eventually 1% of inferences may be randomly selected for verification. This dynamic approach allows us to keep the overall verification percentage low while effectively catching participants who attempt to cheat.

At the end of each epoch, participants are rewarded in proportion to their weight in the network. Tasks are also weighted, so rewards are expected to be proportional to both weight and the amount of work completed. This means we don’t need to catch and punish cheaters immediately; it’s sufficient to catch them within the epoch before distributing rewards.

Economic incentives drive this trade-off as much as technical parameters. By making cheating expensive and honest participation profitable, we can create a system where the rational choice is honest participation.

Optimize space After months of building and testing, we’ve built a system that combines the record-keeping and security advantages of blockchain while approaching the single-shot inference performance of centralized providers. The fundamental tension between security and performance is real, and there’s no perfect solution, only different trade-offs.

We believe that as the network scales, it has a real opportunity to compete with centralized providers while maintaining full decentralized community control. There’s also significant room for optimization as it develops. If you’re interested in learning about this process, please visit our GitHub and documentation, join the discussion on Discord, and participate in the network yourself.

About Gonka.ai
Gonka is a decentralized network designed to provide efficient AI computing power. Its design goal is to maximize the use of global GPU computing power to complete meaningful AI workloads. By eliminating centralized gatekeepers, Gonka provides developers and researchers with permissionless access to computing resources while rewarding all participants with its native GNK token.

Gonka was incubated by US AI developer Product Science Inc. Founded by the Libermans siblings, Web 2 industry veterans and former core product directors at Snap Inc., the company successfully raised $18 million in 2023 from investors including OpenAI investor Coatue Management, Solana investor Slow Ventures, K5, Insight, and Benchmark Partners. Early contributors to the project include well-known leaders in the Web 2-Web 3 space, such as 6 Blocks, Hard Yaka, Gcore, and Bitfury.

Official Website | Github | X | Bất hòa | Sách trắng | Mô hình kinh tế | User Manual

Bài viết này được lấy từ internet: In-depth analysis of decentralized AI reasoning: How to strike a balance between security and performanceRecommended Articles

Related: Prediction Market New Infrastructure: An Inventory of Polymarket’s Third-Party Ecosystem Projects Polymarket has become almost synonymous with prediction markets. Public information shows that Polymarket’s monthly trading volume has repeatedly surpassed $1 billion this year, creating a significant gap between it and second-place Kalshi. The project has not only received tens of millions of dollars in investment from Trump’s eldest son, but is also preparing to return to the US market and secure a new round of funding. Market speculation suggests its valuation could reach $10 billion. Against this backdrop, a number of third-party ecosystems have emerged around Polymarket, encompassing data/dashboards, social experiences, front-end/terminals, insurance, and AI agents. On September 12th, RootData compiled a collection of representative projects into its “Polymarket Ecosystem Projects” compilation, which we will explore in this article. Polysights | One-stop analysis panel Polysights is a one-stop analytics dashboard…

Phân tích ## bitcoinTiền mã hóa #Mã thông báo #© 版权声明Mảng 上一 hình ảnh The Rise of a New RWB Narrative: From “Asset Tokenization” to “Business Tokenization” 下一 hình ảnh Plasma's Stablecoin Dream Story: The 26-Year-Old Founder Tells How to Build the Strongest Project of This Round 相关文章 After two years of waiting, is this the end of the RGB protocol’s launch on the mainnet?Recommended Articles 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 27.926 1 Web3 Lawyer’s Interpretation: New Regulations from 8 Departments Take Effect, RWA Regulatory Path Officially Clarified 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 9.132 1 The Best Crypto Trading Apps 2025 quản trị viên 31.535 1 After the tide recedes, let’s talk about the differences between Meme and Build 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 18.317 2 2026 Crypto Outlook: New Institutions, New Assets, and New Infrastructure 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 9.337 Buy Coins US stocks in 2025: Madness, premium and arbitrage 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 27.069 2 Miễn bình luận Bạn phải đăng nhập để co thể để lại một lơi nhận xét! Đăng nhập ngay lập tức Miễn bình luận... Bee.com Cổng thông tin Web3 lớn nhất thế giới Đối tác đồng xuCá chép Binance CoinMarketCap CoinGecko Coinlive Giáp Tải xuống Bee Network APP và bắt đầu hành trình web3 Giấy trắng Vai trò Câu hỏi thường gặp © 2021–2026. Tất cả quyền được bảo lưu. Chính sách bảo mật | Điều khoản dịch vụ Tải xuống ứng dụng Bee Network và bắt đầu hành trình web3 Cổng thông tin Web3 lớn nhất thế giới Đối tác CoinCarp Binance CoinMarketCap CoinGecko Coinlive Armors Giấy trắng Vai trò Câu hỏi thường gặp © 2021–2026. Tất cả quyền được bảo lưu. Chính sách bảo mật | Điều khoản dịch vụ Tìm kiếm Tìm kiếmTrong trang webOnChainXã hộiTin tức 热门推荐: Thợ săn airdrop Phân tích dữ liệu Người nổi tiếng về tiền điện tử Máy dò bẫy Tiếng Việt English 繁體中文 简体中文 日本語 العربية 한국어 Bahasa Indonesia हिन्दी اردو Русский Tiếng Việt

智能索引记录