MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: earonesty@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <Cwhn7YzwaDUZtOygDAgrU1UXjRPG-EiH3Fyz2c95gqOpNnNbiYL1NvhS28yK5wLJCnIqDaBrM6c574dY-O6_-bRjLIFmDe2NCxIuyV1w2dw=@protonmail.com>
References: <CAJR7vkpRhNsQsem-nFkeubX04xx1y7aHwCENfg0d1266oOsXMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<Cwhn7YzwaDUZtOygDAgrU1UXjRPG-EiH3Fyz2c95gqOpNnNbiYL1NvhS28yK5wLJCnIqDaBrM6c574dY-O6_-bRjLIFmDe2NCxIuyV1w2dw=@protonmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:44:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKg+tYK9j5LTwokMGutD+-SjBQ70U=X7rqHMGSeaG2NEo9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: praxeology_guy <praxeology_guy@protonmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11375e08ca706b054cc040b4
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit
Precedence: list

--001a11375e08ca706b054cc040b4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Curious: I'm not sure why a serious discussion of POW change is not on the
table as a part of a longer-term roadmap.

Done right, a ramp down of reliance on SHA-256 and a ramp-up on some of the
proven, np-complete graph-theoretic or polygon manipulation POW would keep
Bitcoin in commodity hardware and out of the hands of centralized
manufacturing for many years.

Clearly a level-playing field is critical to keeping centralization from
being a "defining feature" of Bitcoin over the long term.   I've heard the
term "level playing field" bandied about quite a bit.   And it seems to me
that the risk of state actor control and botnet attacks is less than
state-actor manipulation of specialized manufacturing of "SHA-256 forever"
hardware.   Indeed, the reliance on a fairly simple hash seems less and
less likely a "feature" and more of a baggage.

Perhaps regular, high-consensus POW changes might even be *necessary* as a
part of good maintenance of cryptocurrency in general.   Killing the
existing POW, and using an as-yet undefined, but deployment-bit ready POW
field to flip-flop between the current and the "next one" every 8 years or
or so, with a ramp down beginning in the 7th year....  A stub function that
is guaranteed to fail unless a new consensus POW is selected within 7
years.

Something like that?

Haven't thought about it *that* much, but I think the network would respond
well to a well known cutover date.   This would enable rapid-response to
quantum tech, or some other needed POW switch as well... because the
mechanisms would be in-place and ready to switch as needed.

Lots of people seem to panic over POW changes as "irresponsible", but it's
only irresponsible if done irresponsibly.


On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:48 PM, praxeology_guy via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Jimmy Song,
>
> Why would the actual end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term
> owners of bitcoins) who run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin
> policy in order to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack?
>
> If anything, we would be making policy changes to prevent the use of
> patented PoW algorithms instead of making changes to enable them.
>
> Thanks,
> Praxeology Guy
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--001a11375e08ca706b054cc040b4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Curious: I&#39;m not sure why a serious discussion of POW =
change is not on the table as a part of a longer-term roadmap.<br><br>Done =
right, a ramp down of reliance on SHA-256 and a ramp-up on some of the prov=
en, np-complete graph-theoretic or polygon manipulation POW would keep Bitc=
oin in commodity hardware and out of the hands of centralized manufacturing=
 for many years. =C2=A0 <br><br>Clearly a level-playing field is critical t=
o keeping centralization from being a &quot;defining feature&quot; of Bitco=
in over the long term. =C2=A0 I&#39;ve heard the term &quot;level playing f=
ield&quot; bandied about quite a bit. =C2=A0 And it seems to me that the ri=
sk of state actor control and botnet attacks is less than state-actor manip=
ulation of specialized manufacturing of &quot;SHA-256 forever&quot; hardwar=
e. =C2=A0 Indeed, the reliance on a fairly simple hash seems less and less =
likely a &quot;feature&quot; and more of a baggage.<div><br></div><div>Perh=
aps regular, high-consensus POW changes might even be *necessary* as a part=
 of good maintenance of cryptocurrency in general. =C2=A0 Killing the exist=
ing POW, and using an as-yet undefined, but deployment-bit ready POW field =
to flip-flop between the current and the &quot;next one&quot; every 8 years=
 or or so, with a ramp down beginning in the 7th year....=C2=A0 A stub func=
tion that is guaranteed to fail unless a new consensus POW is selected with=
in 7 years. =C2=A0 <br><br>Something like that? =C2=A0 <br><br>Haven&#39;t =
thought about it *that* much, but I think the network would respond well to=
 a well known cutover date. =C2=A0 This would enable rapid-response to quan=
tum tech, or some other needed POW switch as well... because the mechanisms=
 would be in-place and ready to switch as needed.</div><div><br></div><div>=
Lots of people seem to panic over POW changes as &quot;irresponsible&quot;,=
 but it&#39;s only irresponsible if done irresponsibly.</div><div><br></div=
></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Ap=
r 7, 2017 at 9:48 PM, praxeology_guy via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid=
;padding-left:1ex"><div>Jimmy Song,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Why would =
the actual end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term owners of bit=
coins) who run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin policy in order=
 to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack?<br></div><div><br></div=
><div>If anything, we would be making policy changes to prevent the use of =
patented PoW algorithms instead of making changes to enable them.<br></div>=
<div><br></div><div>Thanks,<br></div><div>Praxeology Guy<br></div><br>_____=
_________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a11375e08ca706b054cc040b4--