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 44F63259 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 18:10:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com (mail-ob0-f174.google.com [209.85.214.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC97014C for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 18:10:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obcbp4 with SMTP id bp4so5207485obc.2 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:10:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=XY27DWF7a2536mrwtef/qKukItsQwoHxO9ZvUtCEjvM=; b=pGOw3VN1w6he17J2DErPAyIFarKwa3Z0gjZ1+DyjxpTkU/cv8Ka2Sv6C6bcPnLy93O C3BDUB9S9MWq4p4zqYJN/7d8BIvFLKYv4CqMZxXb2goZDy+Bq505MZAibwpJG7yEaUt4 9n9PjOfV0Ns2uXMoStx5MDnF9lRt1b5mNvarq6mCOU0bjA13dUDIbz2TU1x/XS/6H9dt fCK5dOkOL5T/Ty7PtsktgQtP7TUqTPKQmUD4Z7YQHfEcAUVPt4ip52XTwb1qQ3mwpgis bpEEodp0nWSeoSk4Ho3z/hKrbh0e5UuheBmd/QPoPG8ZahgBGIX8s1nxX+k/mFyGIuD4 z3Ww== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.143.98 with SMTP id sd2mr4703949oeb.23.1440958240044; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:10:40 -0700 (PDT) Sender: dscotese@gmail.com Received: by 10.202.172.145 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:10:39 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7j461age1MI-ZAmbZNk5YKeGf5I Message-ID: From: Dave Scotese To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b4725a808be8b051e8b3c5f X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Proof of Work algorithm vs mining centralization X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 18:10:41 -0000 --047d7b4725a808be8b051e8b3c5f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Before miners get angry, consider that whatever the community does will attempt to preserve the efforts you have made to make Bitcoin a success. Paragraph five, below, includes a provision to protect you, so please don't write me off. The competition is essential to protecting the data in the blockchain. I worry that any time (eg all time so far) the rules of that competition remain static, a group of people willing to develop and optimize hardware that performs the work will form, and their products will find a following - the miners. These miners and hardware producers will advance the technology until the cost of competing in the space is so high that mining bitcoin is, for all practical purposes, centralized. I propose that the proof of work algorithm be scheduled to change periodically. The current definition is pretty simple and there's no reason not to continue using simple definitions. We could develop a list of hash algorithms which could be indexed so that the first few bits of the difficulty-change block's hash (or even *every* block's hash) could be used to select one to be used for the next block. The principle is to discourage specialization of hardware designed for what we must admit is an arbitrary computing exercise, intended only to enable competition. Of course chip designers could start working on hardware that can handle all the algorithms defined, but the protocol can also warn them that from time to time, the community will alter the content of the list of hash algorithms, specifically to ensure that *general purpose *computing machines (ie, what the average tech aficionado will have) is the best device for mining bitcoin. If such a variable PoW were to be used, I recommend that most of the elements in the initial list of algorithms be the current PoW algorithm so that most blocks can be solved by the existing mining community, and only one every now and then will be available to everyone else. Over time, that ratio would fall, giving the miners time to convert their expertise into more productive activities. I refer you to the stories at the beginning of each chapter of Douglas Hofstadter's G=C3=B6del, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, a few of which describe = a competition between a record-player-making tortoise and Achilles, who works on making records that break the record players. It offers some through provoking musings that can easily be related to this thing Satoshi made. notplato --047d7b4725a808be8b051e8b3c5f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Before miners get angry, consider that what= ever the community does will attempt to preserve the efforts you have made = to make Bitcoin a success.=C2=A0 Paragraph five, below, includes a provisio= n to protect you, so please don't write me off.

The c= ompetition is essential to protecting the data in the blockchain.=C2=A0 I w= orry that any time (eg all time so far) the rules of that competition remai= n static, a group of people willing to develop and optimize hardware that p= erforms the work will form, and their products will find a following - the = miners.=C2=A0 These miners and hardware producers will advance the technolo= gy until the cost of competing in the space is so high that mining bitcoin = is, for all practical purposes, centralized.

I propose that th= e proof of work algorithm be scheduled to change periodically.=C2=A0 The cu= rrent definition is pretty simple and there's no reason not to continue= using simple definitions.=C2=A0 We could develop a list of hash algorithms= which could be indexed so that the first few bits of the difficulty-change= block's hash (or even every block's hash) could be used to = select one to be used for the next block.=C2=A0 The principle is to discour= age specialization of hardware designed for what we must admit is an arbitr= ary computing exercise, intended only to enable competition.

<= div>Of course chip designers could start working on hardware that can handl= e all the algorithms defined, but the protocol can also warn them that from= time to time, the community will alter the content of the list of hash alg= orithms, specifically to ensure that general purpose computing machi= nes (ie, what the average tech aficionado will have) is the best device for= mining bitcoin.

If such a variable PoW were to be = used, I recommend that most of the elements in the initial list of algorith= ms be the current PoW algorithm so that most blocks can be solved by the ex= isting mining community, and only one every now and then will be available = to everyone else.=C2=A0 Over time, that ratio would fall, giving the miners= time to convert their expertise into more productive activities.

I refer you to the stories at the beginning of each chapter of Douglas Hofstadter's
G= =C3=B6del, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, a few of which describe a= competition between a record-player-making tortoise and Achilles, who work= s on making records that break the record players.=C2=A0 It offers some thr= ough provoking musings that can easily be related to this thing Satoshi mad= e.

notplato
--047d7b4725a808be8b051e8b3c5f--