Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8999EC0001 for ; Tue, 25 May 2021 00:55:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C15400D2 for ; Tue, 25 May 2021 00:55:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xlkBKyKXNhRT for ; Tue, 25 May 2021 00:55:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com (mail-lj1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 011C6400B5 for ; Tue, 25 May 2021 00:55:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id e11so35911631ljn.13 for ; Mon, 24 May 2021 17:55:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mk1r4TGSbz7j95CVq1i1jznX9CQMP+cEEaHKeKb1BVg=; b=A5/gAISsywE5cTBotrR1GYSavM0VXEeQZjKjbcDZBUVRsZWYZmoiwoL1QeybMp2NlI SSn4J5ar+NLqiZYymhBNSjbeIPHh1d8Zi1JmRkoQLSGiIWOh1ReKf6sCSTF60Y2vKUUM PjMTcQENdclY5wvIVWbBheXNsgqtEPUUT8EZ2YOKlRvhLTGizr+fOJ7NxcfTr3NYTFN0 53TJSbi1E+bIlxRdQytnB8IsviEKMLyUALucw+fqIoT33wxtFnDxX+G4tTah/KFKsKD6 8ltCJBy3Db8928rESlIoLZFedN1hXrL/hLX7Kh2PnA7sBcX+FC4MY/fR/lcSvAkFQV3k A6Fw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mk1r4TGSbz7j95CVq1i1jznX9CQMP+cEEaHKeKb1BVg=; b=e7+cfX/8RzvJTaN/VJx1H+82RK/AEzqpD+kIgEdkSAS0RHeS2NlhY8OhKNAb/0sSPC hFztYqDfZW4vldKHOidkUycsF2hFvIiL4SyFo3edhMYW2MeIMDr3bA+cV7/RA+ffHI8U aZK2p8sPQxd6pKLFqBvlpuQ6bdI6JvNCB4UytZCYOLflsnADK2N7fzUMb2VmL4LW2x9Y 61L/kK9baP5OjG/X6T0d3UmvC7kY67wBopjU8FP9WDWdx3xOMGe3X+z1xWjHOWBckML7 MGrY0tyywaFNKf0W2SwhAlsttg24X3URi5N7KaMNBfF56Yeq+TriZZHQTTLAuMFj8rZ8 Ex6w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533C/FoByoxo1E6AuqOSU2kIIF4RlDkmaG5ClACNqIIKnV1p5PoB fGztk5a40W9IIkTSrwXqD5IBaXjBLax+XH8Rhac= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwvBiMKFRJkr5uy5dU+qKyksohXA3y2/OZx7KSKyTf5LjB+HHjOKkm/p8MeqLeEdfQ/xrkm3AEWcyYATJ/rAes= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7d01:: with SMTP id y1mr19269157ljc.172.1621904135658; Mon, 24 May 2021 17:55:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:651c:2109:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 24 May 2021 17:55:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Karl Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 20:55:34 -0400 Message-ID: To: Billy Tetrud Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 25 May 2021 08:34:20 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reducing block reward via soft fork X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 00:55:39 -0000 If bitcoin were to ever consider changing their PoW algorithm a little, it seems that would immediately make purchased ASIC mining equipment partially or wholly unusable to compromise the chain (and temporarily reduce energy usage without necessarily reducing security). One possible plan to deter a multibillionaire attack. Also regarding the word "security" here, a 51% attack impacts some parts of chain operations, but not others. It seems to me bitcoin's biggest vulnerabilities are either covert compromise of mining pool operations, or widespread compromise of networked mining systems and client nodes. Far easier than outcompeting the mining network with hardware. I don't see why it would necessarily be made public if a government compromised their nation's mining farms. Governments have skilled operatives for things like that. People would guess it happened, and the government would cover up the guesses with more powerful stories.