Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

Restarting the mining with a new algorithm as a reaction and defence against centralised hoarding of mining ASICs (as we are seeing now), would be acceptable. It would not necessarily be contentions *to the economy*, as such hoarding-miners do not participate in the economy in any meaningful way (

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

If the PoW function is changed, it ought to change slowly so as not to drop a brick wall in front of the miners speeding toward the ever-receding goal of protecting the blockchain. Who's going to get on that path if the bitcoin community does that? But it can be done slowly. If most of the entri

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

On Friday, October 02, 2015 8:02:43 AM Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I am however interested in the dev-list's stance on potentially > altering the bitcoin PoW protocol should an algorithm that guarantees > protection from ASIC/FPGA optimization be found. > > I assume that, given the larg

[bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal:

/* I do not want to make anyone angry, this is sarcasm, if you are not interested, please stop here */ I would like to propose a block size algorithm based off the use of extra unneeded, unwanted data. I’m looking to see if anyone would be able to help me find potential flaws. ==Abstract== T

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The recently published paper I referenced cite's the Cuckoo cycle algorithm, > discusses its limitations and explains how their proposed algorithm greatly > improves on it. They discuss a very old version of the Cuckoo cycle p

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:20 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > On Oct 2, 2015 10:03 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" > > wrote: > > should an algorithm that guarantees protection from ASIC/FPGA optimization > > be found. > This is demonstr

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote: > At that time nobody used the term "SPV wallet" to refer to what apps like > BreadWallet or libraries like bitcoinj do. Satoshi used the term "client > only mode", Jeff was calling them "headers only client" etc. So I said, I'm >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]

2015-10-02 15:14 GMT+02:00 jl2012 via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > According to the Oxford Dictionary, "coin" as a verb means "invent (a new > word or phrase)". Undoubtedly you created the first functional SPV client > but please retract the claim "I coined the term SPV"

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]

According to the Oxford Dictionary, "coin" as a verb means "invent (a new word or phrase)". Undoubtedly you created the first functional SPV client but please retract the claim "I coined the term SPV" or that's plagiarism. And I'd like to highlight the following excerpt from the whitepaper: "

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]

FWIW the "coining" I am referring to is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7972.msg116285#msg116285 OK, with that, here goes. Firstly some terminology. I'm going to call these things SPV clients for "simplified payment verification". Headers-only is kind of a mouthful and "lightweight

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

On Oct 2, 2015 12:46 PM, "NxtChg" wrote: > > > >...obviously not for so called "ASIC-resistance" [an absurd term coined to promote some altcoins] > > Yet another fallacy of "all-or-nothing" thinking, which is so abundant in the Core camp. > > The fact that you can build ASIC for any kind of algori

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

>...obviously not for so called "ASIC-resistance" [an absurd term coined to >promote some altcoins] Yet another fallacy of "all-or-nothing" thinking, which is so abundant in the Core camp. The fact that you can build ASIC for any kind of algorithm _in_theory_ doesn't mean you can't make it _a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

Interesting! I didn't notice BIP 99's anti-miner hardfork proposal thanks for pointing it out to me. Dpinna Daniele Pinna, Ph.D On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2015 10:03 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

The recently published paper I referenced cite's the Cuckoo cycle algorithm, discusses its limitations and explains how their proposed algorithm greatly improves on it. Again you're probably in a WAYYY better position to judge this than I am. My question was purely hypothetical as I wanted to k

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

See also https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n5nws/research_paper_asymmetric_proofofwork_based_on/cvl922x Adam On 2 October 2015 at 10:20, Jorge Timón wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2015 10:03 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" > wrote: >> >> should an algorithm that guarantees protection from A

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

On Oct 2, 2015 10:03 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > should an algorithm that guarantees protection from ASIC/FPGA optimization be found. This is demonstrably impossible: anything that can be done with software can be done with hardware. This

[bitcoin-dev] 2015-10-01 #bitcoin-dev Weekly Development Meeting Minutes

Meeting Title: #bitcoin-dev Weekly Development Meeting Meeting Date: 2015-10-01 Meeting Time: 19:00-20:00 UTC Participants in Attendance: dstadulis wumpus morcos gmaxwell btcdrak jonasshnelli maaku sdaftuar sipa BlueMatt CodeShark Luke-Jr bsm117532 jgarzik IRC Chat Logs: http://bitcoinstats.com/irc

[bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

The following paper proposing an asymmetric memory-hard PoW had been recently published: http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/946.pdf My intent is not to promote the paper as I have not finished studying it myself. I am however interested in the dev-list's stance on potentially altering the bitcoin PoW pr