Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31AF71E25 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:01:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 852A08E for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:00:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so28343803wic.1 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:00:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=szXdhtlui7vcTdt7fEqPG4/8iZ6HXDr5a7zjV3KIJzQ=; b=S3UYRxYRrkYJCXvieL0qaUPiJtEpaelkmn2X9bF6UjV199xM+NMVnSJEQ/Cbu0V60q QoRd70l9KrJRyGRoyKGm8fCLBBHooConTMPh+8guPfzIWqq4tr62jvuE6q56ZyXSEXWw YPNXR1FdFHJ2wTGYGScB2yzc60mE8OF89bYn7vyrEGw/a4efcrQDmEkNf/mu4OuygzjJ aKPcTlPC5upR60HFc2VBqcjkNOHWqfGCiIF4UyUxlb5yN76g1dR/4eXlqFcD/nZMp0i2 d0RyNKfAhULuTP2UMt9n+9dFHGloeqQSlmXi6XVjywhV1LN8yU2ETvQtguEyyFrYQpmM FmLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm0FsoYoZubr0ONWfbwmhDEjv1ldGS4x3RmjRseccZfp3vSfZDLdI6vGkNI1s1BwMkP0gnN MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.8.106 with SMTP id q10mr3407934wia.92.1443783658388; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.114.199 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.114.199 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:00:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20151002104630.5F7A720101@smtp.hushmail.com> References: <20151002104630.5F7A720101@smtp.hushmail.com> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:00:57 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: NxtChg Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0421a72317549805211d14dc X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, 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 11:01:01 -0000 --f46d0421a72317549805211d14dc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Oct 2, 2015 12:46 PM, "NxtChg" wrote: > > > >...obviously not for so called "ASIC-resistance" [an absurd term coined to promote some altcoins] > > Yet another fallacy of "all-or-nothing" thinking, which is so abundant in the Core camp. > > The fact that you can build ASIC for any kind of algorithm _in_theory_ doesn't mean you can't make it _arbitrary_hard_ in practice. > > So I would tone down the arrogance a bit. > ASIC-RESISTANCE is simply not possible, I'm sorry if that position strikes you as arrogant. Note that I didn't say anything about memory-hard, which is possible (but not necessarily preferrable to simple-to-implement-in-hardware pow algorithms). --f46d0421a72317549805211d14dc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Oct 2, 2015 12:46 PM, "NxtChg" <nxtchg@hush.com> wrote:
>
>
> >...obviously not for so called "ASIC-resistance" [an abs= urd term coined to promote some altcoins]
>
> Yet another fallacy of "all-or-nothing" thinking, which is s= o abundant in the Core camp.
>
> The fact that you can build ASIC for any kind of algorithm _in_theory_= doesn't mean you can't make it _arbitrary_hard_ in practice.
>
> So I would tone down the arrogance a bit.
>

ASIC-RESISTANCE is simply not possible, I'm sorry if tha= t position strikes you as arrogant. Note that I didn't say anything abo= ut memory-hard, which is possible (but not necessarily preferrable to simpl= e-to-implement-in-hardware pow algorithms).

--f46d0421a72317549805211d14dc--