From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1X35Hr-0004Fz-T4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 04 Jul 2014 15:20:31 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.182; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f182.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1X35Ho-00064X-L8 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 04 Jul 2014 15:20:31 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id nu7so1971587obb.41 for ; Fri, 04 Jul 2014 08:20:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.181.74 with SMTP id du10mr13360739obc.52.1404487223153; Fri, 04 Jul 2014 08:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 08:20:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5408721.UFIVL0MiXs@momentum> References: <10566815.3CllqoMfON@momentum> <5408721.UFIVL0MiXs@momentum> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 17:20:23 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: oInfbts1gT46AoArHXeUPtyDMkU Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Andy Parkins Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118479a071ac804fd5faaaf X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1X35Ho-00064X-L8 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] ASIC-proof mining X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 15:20:32 -0000 --089e0118479a071ac804fd5faaaf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Yup, no need to apologise. If nothing else the conversations get archived where other people can use them to get up to speed faster. A lot of these discussions get spread across forums, lists and IRC so it can be hard to know what the current state of the art thinking is. Recall the second prong of my opening argument - if you could beat ASICs, you'd end up with botnets. I prefer having the chain be dominated by a single pool for a while than having one with a major botnet presence, given their history of doing things like mining empty blocks and giving random people enormous electricity bills. I think we can make good head way if we just optimise a lot and finish things off, to be honest. I'm not sure we need an algorithmic silver bullet. Remember you can always outsource mining by just not having any hardware at all, CEX style, so trying to prevent outsourcing using clever hacks seems ultimately doomed. --089e0118479a071ac804fd5faaaf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yup, no need to apologise. If nothing else the conversatio= ns get archived where other people can use them to get up to speed faster. = A lot of these discussions get spread across forums, lists and IRC so it ca= n be hard to know what the current state of the art thinking is.

Recall the second prong of my opening argument - if you could beat ASIC= s, you'd end up with botnets. I prefer having the chain be dominated by= a single pool for a while than having one with a major botnet presence, gi= ven their history of doing things like mining empty blocks and giving rando= m people enormous electricity bills.

I think we = can make good head way if we just optimise a lot and finish things off, to = be honest. I'm not sure we need an algorithmic silver bullet. Remember = you can always outsource mining by just not having any hardware at all, CEX= style, so trying to prevent outsourcing using clever hacks seems ultimatel= y doomed.
--089e0118479a071ac804fd5faaaf--