public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Daniele Pinna <daniele.pinna@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:31:21 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201510022131.22411.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEgR2PFQtr78B3t147=3Ko4VnTGevb0QCySk=hDSqeFHZk=MPQ@mail.gmail.com>

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 large amount of money invested by some miners into
> their industrial farms this would represent a VERY contentious hard fork.
> 
> It is, however, also true that a novel optimization-resistant algorithm
> could greatly ameliorate decentralization in the bitcoin network due to a
> resurgence of desktop/cellphone mining.
> 
> Where do the core devs stand on this matter, hypothetical as it may be?

Besides ASIC-proof being even tehoretically impossible, assuming we had a PoW 
that worked using mere RAM-as-the-ASIC, this would probably not be good in 
the long term for decentralisation, as it is only a matter of time until 
botnets would bankrupt all the legitimate miners out of operation.

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 (they 
do not accept payments from other bitcoin users).

Luke


  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-10-02 21:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-02  8:02 [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm Daniele Pinna
2015-10-02  8:20 ` Jorge Timón
2015-10-02  8:30   ` Adam Back
2015-10-02  8:31   ` Daniele Pinna
2015-10-02 10:46   ` NxtChg
2015-10-02 11:00     ` Jorge Timón
2015-10-02 16:38   ` Peter R
     [not found] ` <CALqxMTH6r8eJN2Xw+nn1z=6x9Q3TRSQQ6ZMXsmHPyX8dNx+EgA@mail.gmail.com>
2015-10-02  8:30   ` Daniele Pinna
2015-10-02 16:45     ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-02 21:37       ` Dave Scotese
2015-10-02 21:31 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2015-10-02 23:19   ` Milly Bitcoin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=201510022131.22411.luke@dashjr.org \
    --to=luke@dashjr.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=daniele.pinna@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox