From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
To: bfd@cock.lu
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Malice Reactive Proof of Work Additions (MR POWA): Protecting Bitcoin from malicious miners
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 03:47:48 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJowKgJ+3=sOenU9EQ4eCOw8CDMoSX_L=0pUqfBKj3ZyVBXoTA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgJPjWb_S0jb+RJ9-90sucb=ZeU2-qrNqrVN5USTaxDjDw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1157 bytes --]
On Apr 16, 2017 6:28 PM, <bfd@cock.lu> wrote:
On 2017-04-16 17:04, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> This is a great solution.
>
> 8 or more secure hashes, each of which can be implemented on GPU/CPU,
> but rotate through them - per block round robin.
>
> Hardware, infrastructue investment is protected. ASIC is not.
>
>
The write time for configuring a FPGA with a fresh bitstream is measured in
tens of milliseconds.
I have no objections to the use of FPGA or any other commercially available
hardware.
ASIC will never beat this - because it will be 8x more expensive to
> maintain the cold circuits.
>
>
Unused circuits don't consume power, which is the main cost in running a
miner
They make GPUs or FPGAs (as u mentioned) far more affordable. The problem
is centralized manufacturing, which, in turn, is a side effect of a covert
hardware mining optimization leading to a monopoly.
A rotating POW seems to make ASIC manufacture impractical compared to
generalized, commercially available hardware.
It's too bad we can't make the POW somehow dynamic so that any specialized
hardware is impossible, and only GPU / FPGA is possible.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2449 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-17 7:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-18 16:01 [bitcoin-dev] Malice Reactive Proof of Work Additions (MR POWA): Protecting Bitcoin from malicious miners John Hardy
2017-03-20 15:38 ` Andrew Johnson
2017-03-20 15:46 ` John Hardy
2017-03-20 16:10 ` Andrew Johnson
2017-03-20 15:55 ` Marcos mayorga
2017-04-16 20:04 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-04-17 1:28 ` bfd
[not found] ` <CAJowKg+1vUBmr7cTzUy8gAdjEWTM_+07G9Z96Bo=wd6_htgv1Q@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAJowKgJPjWb_S0jb+RJ9-90sucb=ZeU2-qrNqrVN5USTaxDjDw@mail.gmail.com>
2017-04-17 7:47 ` Erik Aronesty [this message]
[not found] ` <CAJowKgKqyb7DCs-yrbj4Z8Kzmgg0GCKXh+wwdSvfPHregiwdvA@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAJowKgL=UmJvE0KpSsa20AJBF6Ur85ghRymHY+=11VOezmaaxw@mail.gmail.com>
2017-04-17 11:17 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-04-17 22:34 ` Natanael
2017-03-20 18:02 ` Nick ODell
2017-03-20 18:51 ` David Vorick
2017-03-20 21:29 ` John Hardy
2017-03-20 17:49 ` Bram Cohen
2017-03-20 21:23 ` John Hardy
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='CAJowKgJ+3=sOenU9EQ4eCOw8CDMoSX_L=0pUqfBKj3ZyVBXoTA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=erik@q32.com \
--cc=bfd@cock.lu \
--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