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

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] 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] 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