From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9289DB77 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:46:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f177.google.com (mail-io0-f177.google.com [209.85.223.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43BE01E6 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:46:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f177.google.com with SMTP id a103so33436087ioj.1 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:46:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bittorrent-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LrJDJnxR/EL9W+YxJuSxh9kpTzTKW7JLDFp1Jcr6IyQ=; b=ZDD+mGvNg3OI4UYbwej+oOdHKcs5y1kbyOJnHuCqvBHlqSYCVMU2aCcYlarXNfWaBt VodWGuxtYCaiaJlS665u48voyXNk9+TaYAKoXCpetFoFbDKvW9WuPI5kHzdW0fUVLx2F 384THjYj+oiLSTVlfzI13BsXQaClsyzXK4HOKCfjH6JhW806/tpKapkK6XUfTRHBiQE3 c+S/1lGw79yjALJG1fn23lYWpL105Yt7FUxhA4yv3giXy/GkWbl5qb3vpjJjctPMGTTw jRpa7Dp6h3CGg/Z4S4dM9Nsa/S9LQgkLVhrtkeqmAtuWu/YxJFFvtdK++xcJdPsOf7ql LlwA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LrJDJnxR/EL9W+YxJuSxh9kpTzTKW7JLDFp1Jcr6IyQ=; b=h7g9cybWRPO958AeHsb40t2I0OF+U5GRFo4VKSYqmyD5D2q78KO6f5ZRLTddxSBFz2 IINWGB80Aei5q42Y9fEuO4i87JlHxIxMAGoXsNfZV2JNmUeZwtQgikiZoN1Tgfg3Y8j+ a6Z9qSqtfaK5BVRoVu92rFpGd0YP4SLdSdlpqOIrGDKsq1IQwxxMSIDceA4EfcnW7QG0 jVpzCISmsj/cvaZg99umj3lK3Y24X6Tyto2rxU+hNOnA89OtGx21CRUXKpRJWU63UnBP SEcd3XEdRjrE6YCfpnN5OiNdSxxVFa01LrMe+yYNIp3ku3o5b3faDeI5ppVmZz2Xm6Vr AiJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4L0+DyvNVvIUv889/mh8+wAPW+nRmwnPijcf2xDUjpYC5xlYE40Xml1Ygh+Ufkm0NPAZULFTTsRpSAESFz X-Received: by 10.107.164.106 with SMTP id n103mr1977819ioe.103.1491835596308; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:46:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.202.193 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:46:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Bram Cohen Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:46:35 -0700 Message-ID: To: Erik Aronesty Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11421b38c81a22054cd10aec X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:46:39 -0000 --001a11421b38c81a22054cd10aec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Perhaps regular, high-consensus POW changes might even be *necessary* as a > part of good maintenance of cryptocurrency in general. Killing the > existing POW, and using an as-yet undefined, but deployment-bit ready POW > field to flip-flop between the current and the "next one" every 8 years or > or so, with a ramp down beginning in the 7th year.... A stub function that > is guaranteed to fail unless a new consensus POW is selected within 7 > years. > That would force hard forks, cause huge governance problems on selecting the new PoW algorithm, and probably cause even worse mining chip manufacturer centralization because it would force miners to buy new chips instead of sticking with the ones they've already got. They'll likely have to keep buying new ones anyway as technology improves but it doesn't help to force that process to go even faster. --001a11421b38c81a22054cd10aec Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= un, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Perhaps regul= ar, high-consensus POW changes might even be *necessary* as a part of good = maintenance of cryptocurrency in general. =C2=A0 Killing the existing POW, = and using an as-yet undefined, but deployment-bit ready POW field to flip-f= lop between the current and the "next one" every 8 years or or so= , with a ramp down beginning in the 7th year....=C2=A0 A stub function that= is guaranteed to fail unless a new consensus POW is selected within 7 year= s. =C2=A0

That would force= hard forks, cause huge governance problems on selecting the new PoW algori= thm, and probably cause even worse mining chip manufacturer centralization = because it would force miners to buy new chips instead of sticking with the= ones they've already got. They'll likely have to keep buying new o= nes anyway as technology improves but it doesn't help to force that pro= cess to go even faster.
--001a11421b38c81a22054cd10aec--