From: Daniele Pinna <daniele.pinna@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:30:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEgR2PFCLKSDveHQ1xZX0zSdT6_C=ee0-JCQ3REARhCLU6nCYg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTH6r8eJN2Xw+nn1z=6x9Q3TRSQQ6ZMXsmHPyX8dNx+EgA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2098 bytes --]
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 know where the core devs stand on flipping the
mining ecosystem upside down.
Thanks for your link though, I'll read it right now (before finishing the
research article i posted :) ).
Daniele
Daniele Pinna, Ph.D
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
> There are papers demonstrating this "protection from ASIC/FPGA
> optimization" to be basically impossible
> https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf and yet people
> keep trying...
>
> See also John Tromps cuckoo cycle paper, seems close to the best you
> could expect from memory hard.
>
> Adam
>
> On 2 October 2015 at 10:02, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 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 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?
> >
> > Dpinna
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3209 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-02 8:31 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 [this message]
2015-10-02 16:45 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-02 21:37 ` Dave Scotese
2015-10-02 21:31 ` Luke Dashjr
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='CAEgR2PFCLKSDveHQ1xZX0zSdT6_C=ee0-JCQ3REARhCLU6nCYg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=daniele.pinna@gmail.com \
--cc=adam@cypherspace.org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
/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