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
>