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 E101DA67 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 07:47:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f195.google.com (mail-qt0-f195.google.com [209.85.216.195]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 272AD131 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 07:47:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f195.google.com with SMTP id t52so6145253qtb.3 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 00:47:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=oaRGx1mF3PDi3uyOmhtOx/glMy+YxPZ/Mjo/xJy+2qk=; b=NsfwuM/eGdZhZWelWS1hZ4LCUwBs3OoW6Wv1pW6BpMo0/ELBRHcEY6+LknPR0sHvIq maqAMTp91IZoA8bQBA1yV1VPENdKYg81TBX5C24wrsWzAGmizsUHCkmdr4kxuO2XDKo7 IviOGqM1E8SFK/FXeJrR1hclRFhnEDwOGirbKZNFy7ex+CB6G3I8RkKKWfdd5CR4rfAz 5DQx7ivKSecQlsoZjqTZ2iyNhzBYt6I+t9Qo1iChg64hp+oCEOd2PXpJ4dz5YAluxOAI l6z7hLUwhfn+MggOcQTA6EFXsIO1PdP7RT9tjgx4qF0Rf8FbYFG9GCHYpCh5RX/3uHC9 0VCA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oaRGx1mF3PDi3uyOmhtOx/glMy+YxPZ/Mjo/xJy+2qk=; b=H5Qu/v+MHsH99oTdUWRINd1spVRy1FhzjimPpQrYzM4AAMCZRU50fQWzPI9ZSgDUDL 9qvDRvPBOAOqA+qj8efmbjMy1lLCQ+fNfR17HigUa+J2HGhOa6KQ3QR6CAWak6mt/fpu +dqi9SQUlYQ2BU+WJRkOpRNh2UZ9esuHtv634LvZhFUzNKcpzaBR5AD1L4BIC/6+HyBE 0Mpt4ZSLgQrZEezwVz7+qlmMAlq2eoSwGBqx56kRjdvnQSz+cGO8t3xVX/DKK4KWE+3e GnbRmEBoc/AmHuXjEiKF/b+ci3/nYf4A0lVgbx7KzMh7Jyak67bGLt3VV2NUjbwi4xkf xwsA== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5UIEmOtfW5qioC9gCTBcFeBv7omd98Vqq/Ijq7qsyX04wWNMQd 0QxHEMCe8mxfcJHXoAk3LK2upes9ylHO X-Received: by 10.200.36.131 with SMTP id s3mr8802300qts.289.1492415269167; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 00:47:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: earonesty@gmail.com Received: by 10.200.0.146 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 00:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.200.0.146 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 00:47:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0690791a46d7a7699fc3427e92a76e9b.squirrel@mail.fairluck.net> <461f7ce7a17c5765daadc461cdd3373c@cock.lu> From: Erik Aronesty Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 03:47:48 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: s_mO3u7N-klXeywn82sGP4g_urI Message-ID: To: bfd@cock.lu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114072baf9ea3a054d580177 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 10:55:52 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Malice Reactive Proof of Work Additions (MR POWA): Protecting Bitcoin from malicious miners 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, 17 Apr 2017 07:47:51 -0000 --001a114072baf9ea3a054d580177 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Apr 16, 2017 6:28 PM, 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. --001a114072baf9ea3a054d580177 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


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.=C2=A0 ASIC is not.


The write time for configuring a FPGA with a fresh bitstream is measured in= tens of milliseconds.
<= /div>

I have no objectio= ns 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.= =C2=A0 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 availab= le hardware.

It's to= o bad we can't make the POW somehow dynamic so that any specialized har= dware is impossible, and only GPU / FPGA is possible.

--001a114072baf9ea3a054d580177--