Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79A40267 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 00:02:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f51.google.com (mail-lf0-f51.google.com [209.85.215.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA7F3112 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 00:02:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f51.google.com with SMTP id j8so62709521lfd.2 for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 17:02:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=o5CLXI2Wps5OIW3IF4urnZBBfHX5v1YNMzatfHr7myI=; b=jMIK16FDgtZaxViONO4Ya9/JwiSxedW1OBpAYZ8FHKieT+X9RxpKmN74W9P1gkm3jO WEPclnKyGRplVv29ukf+4yRNd5ZNFwGHTF3wVXwMu3t28ndnKEknYZzysHPP+jrIYIn7 LCHUXBPY9EWaDl+E1WwsI8a7IC1CiZM9JYJEn++r2cwTjZzwRwAlpAawpTUro9128SoI nOZIB7sZ0aGa8NH+1nqszz+D5sNw0+vbeX4/pK1TW5zF30BdLrHCtQt2ANkqQVIsFyy7 cdTVe6+qqzEnrTRkG6AUncT4tUtNedmYzPvNUnw9enm0lDmzPhQoZeJbvFRKVObCgLWP pLqw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=o5CLXI2Wps5OIW3IF4urnZBBfHX5v1YNMzatfHr7myI=; b=JaTldO8DaQEE0N1f8iX70BmwwnwmlxNfG5wPHLYQ4eekDJYb5BNXBTXOKpeRa/eM8s O8roAaFLBo9wIX7X7W2mbtbkgF3j/MLKWzFI0neJ1mdzUptIlqDvgIBCUaLm7CKTenIC c5ENlEW0A97Ew7NOFb/PiX5Kmq44jFRby4yyg+V/tEeQYRtbboJ8napYrZfd2e3ZwY/i 1KWphnuvlt5ciasDYK8G0tqWWoE3WzLLspRIr4EbZU9XLSbvwCdnHdKOw3+kD0lmghOE xa8TUuioFHXfXxNzQ6kk490KUFphgeIDReOhHxzgCuf8briq8CXXrf8+E+S5b1vu2j2P 6gDA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWQHSJ+T7YUOfTuqCaEuAM1oxVPDkQRv5UdDeHGotjl7ZELd6lKKTr91bB2tv5CoTs1zEA+Ha4a7y/G8g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.39.141 with SMTP id n135mr2867809lfn.98.1463011329072; Wed, 11 May 2016 17:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.65.108 with HTTP; Wed, 11 May 2016 17:02:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160511230144.GA5252@fedora-21-dvm> References: <20160510185728.GA1149@fedora-21-dvm> <20160511230144.GA5252@fedora-21-dvm> Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 00:02:08 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ywDGcabqzr9HQIauIJ1vr4KOQC8 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Peter Todd , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant 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: Thu, 12 May 2016 00:02:11 -0000 On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Secondly, we can probably make the consensus PoW allow blocks to be mined using > both the existing PoW algorithm, and a very slightly tweaked version where > implementing AsicBoost gives no advantage. That removes any incentive to > implement AsicBoost, without making any hardware obsolete Taking that a step further, the old POW could continue to be accepted but with a 20% target penalty. (or vice versa, with the new POW having a 20% target boost.)