Huh? Hash functions are designed to best ensure non-reversability. There is no proof that one-way functions even exist (such proof would imply P != NP), but hash functions are cryptologists’ best attempts.
Even I think hash functions were hacky attempts at making pows. Its a related problem to pows but just because something is related in a fancy math sense does not mean they are the same.
The best sudoku solver isn’t going to be using cutting edge 3 sats even if both are np-complete because the overhead to make them the same problem in absence of a massive breakthrough is just to high.
Both cc’s are trying to cut down on the verification time in a way hash pows couldn’t; yes they are more proven but I have a hard time believing that cc is going to be broken completely; and subtracting a log n here or there, asic boost style isn’t going to make solving sublinear anytime soon
So in what sense Cuckoo Cycle more of a proof of work than Hashcash?
Well, a Cuckoo Cycle solution actually proves that you did a lot of work. Especially with a growing graph size.
In contrast, a Hashcash solution proves that you got really lucky. It’s really Proof of Luck. Of course, you need to do a lot of expected work to get that lucky, so we could call it proof of expected work. But a pure proof of work it is not, strictly speaking…
Most other coins need to claim that they are ready to solve the world’s problems in order to justify humongous ICOs.
On the other hand, if I understand correctly, Grin is a grand experiment. So why make the conservative but boring choices, and not take bold risks instead?
I personally don’t find it exciting to the optimize GPU algorithms or ASICs for useless work, but that’s just me (and no one is forced to do it either).