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 DAFC41A43 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:38:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C02D2CA for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:38:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([205.250.126.165]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MJjUO-1ZgxQA2mkm-001AEq; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 18:38:31 +0200 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B09B6D8E-F20A-4C24-9DFF-87A28D609852" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Peter R In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:38:26 -0700 Message-Id: References: To: =?utf-8?Q?Jorge_Tim=C3=B3n?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Cec5ZZ5mmQN7O7y7Uj4phS4LdJZhsuQDB4IYddVFJHopNYWMEhI H/tTyLSU8wvBR2lhFLnP8f+HXFPZljSkII4pNgthHGxizyQGHC26DHLAtQJeiaxw9uxRQgt sc3b+JsRUmgfsBBG937ADzwswGEAFsMCUqOdyJoheVxxYvljhqq7IucRfCG8fcs6HvsJyUI f2DPYg20CZF/cn32sVNsg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:UDXefhM2E4Q=:U9w5mhGUMIVnOUDjnJPYuB 0jvHf1w0i0boLCt1fCNGLq7INlF40oYdQ/Yjh9LfOPLwEhABgXLElXvyxz40bNyjMtarSMTFv 0KsXrarWE/kWyljIC4qDR9iQxBfBT6ffAnhEOiw3ZwJRDHlXCihJNRY3PzHpkEiA7ufOixV0t hkIDQSu4xHO28JpIktkJf+mfw6HLaSSmr29KqUQHTlbSQJ8Q/VFPia8zVcU+IKwHA1nY4g2GP KlE5q63MbvAhl+ddLaT9Qju8yhJfsSp2iInTae8DswXVMflhIzgLzJFnv9KEAih+5Ak0RyQXA SKaylRUc1+AIkLsi8u2iEdVY+/EjrNH64DQAPmdVTNo8T8NLLhog8tIbCrjeuOTxaaoUKXzVZ xb3tYfLEkKUPhwnqu4ncxfj9hk7rpKMqnN5ljgy9uEWIqGLqmX3bhVnvgRmwCzAzWb1vWk/WT J9SVojueM3bgml4afi/q3fjTYqzJCiIOu1n1OUL7ND+mx1cG550T8OXsSOztSWI/l5AybKjkh 9s+SFBVzz9SIMfcI47yD2D2lkgu6tQ6TpNsP+6lBWdPUThw/091mY3yz3FTSBvbz02fswYs7J X5EtdHfKnCR4T2YqUFt5jm1PW4ihyd72TAxT1AgiXZ+iIHs3JBcPxMM2Y79wpHZIS59Hw8RXB 7V/7EgUI4RCze2QBe/nByliJ+2YGjUTQEp8RSGCUYJQW/SnrzUwWW2cq6gMDcnH8RXLI9JQoX UerMAD9w0nT2bJD14FsIO5D/yUbGGfzURHOEgz0bObzi4RDV0HQ9LZzbzv/YlBYh+lajEZSMD 5UGNiNq X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Daniele Pinna Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm 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: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:38:35 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B09B6D8E-F20A-4C24-9DFF-87A28D609852 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:20 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev = wrote: > On Oct 2, 2015 10:03 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" = > wrote: > > should an algorithm that guarantees protection from ASIC/FPGA = optimization be found. > This is demonstrably impossible: anything that can be done with = software can be done with hardware. This is computer science 101. And = specialized hardware can always be more efficient, at least energy-wise. >=20 I encourage Alex and Dmitry to consider submitting their paper to = Ledger, where it will be reviewed objectively and with an open mind. = The authors have motivated their work, framed it in its scholarly = context, and made explicit the contributions their paper makes. Their = manuscript, "Asymmetric proof-of-work based on the Generalized Birthday = problem," clearly represents a great deal of work by the authors and I = commend them for their efforts. =20 In the link Adam Back provided, Greg Maxwell mentioned that =E2=80=9Cit = is far from clear that 'memory hardness' is actually a useful goal.=E2=80=9D= I agree with this statement; however, regardless of whether memory = hardness turns out to be a useful goal in regards to cryptocurrency or = not, a paper analyzing memory-hard proof-of-work schemes is certainly = useful in helping us to figure that out.=20 Best regards, Peter= --Apple-Mail=_B09B6D8E-F20A-4C24-9DFF-87A28D609852 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On = Oct 2, 2015, at 1:20 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> = wrote:
On Oct 2, 2015 10:03 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" = <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> = wrote:
> should an algorithm that guarantees protection from = ASIC/FPGA optimization be found.

This is demonstrably impossible: anything that can be done = with software can be done with hardware. This is computer science 101. =  And specialized hardware can always be more efficient, at least = energy-wise.

I encourage Alex and Dmitry to = consider submitting their paper to Ledger, where it = will be reviewed objectively and with an open mind.  The authors = have motivated their work, framed it in its scholarly context, and made = explicit the contributions their paper makes.  Their manuscript, = "Asymmetric proof-of-work based on the Generalized Birthday problem," = clearly represents a great deal of work by the authors and I commend = them for their efforts.  

In the link Adam Back provided, Greg Maxwell mentioned that = =E2=80=9Cit is far from clear that 'memory hardness' is actually a = useful goal.=E2=80=9D  I agree with this statement; however, = regardless of whether memory hardness turns out to be a useful goal in = regards to cryptocurrency or not, a paper analyzing memory-hard = proof-of-work schemes is certainly useful in helping us to figure that = out. 

Best = regards,
Peter
= --Apple-Mail=_B09B6D8E-F20A-4C24-9DFF-87A28D609852--