Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC11AD14 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:02:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f44.google.com (mail-vk0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 367AD87 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:02:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkat63 with SMTP id t63so55279240vka.1 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:02:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=3C13jJRQPr+hFWAGjlR/6USg04uW+srOxpKR/RSpO3Q=; b=xZxZ+5ky6CMQ5ch5EIntxKzkYjOzlsvQA8YBN2Y0y50QcBFXRwjDpnULAAOAFK8XbD suXTpfgUeXrk1iCO882pqSIDNuvNZFP3P6vBcwdEk6D7a94CEIAGdYo3KQGMidmbomUE +sYyJWFq2Z8Um6ln5RwzXH3/vW2sY2xrZCroLK/fAUBl6U+fCb7to4o1l57EDU5RCBWs Tgln6/AD2nRmySOBHc4NMKwNH52tex02dlOJLpTusFG79+IcS2tb/hakJ1ALKuGuZHh9 axjXE+KU/ZqDedm07cMFrrRMUx1X3vuqfdhd684fZlA3iMGPyh4cxcjJbQgc1NsH7BOI ERTQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.49.213 with SMTP id x204mr9838000vkx.51.1443772963298; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:02:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.1.69 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:02:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.1.69 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:02:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:02:43 +0200 Message-ID: From: Daniele Pinna To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143f1ae9d240f05211a96b8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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 Subject: [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 08:02:44 -0000 --001a1143f1ae9d240f05211a96b8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 The following paper proposing an asymmetric memory-hard PoW had been recently published: http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/946.pdf My intent is not to promote the paper as I have not finished studying it myself. I am however interested in the dev-list's stance on potentially altering the bitcoin PoW protocol should an algorithm that guarantees protection from ASIC/FPGA optimization be found. I assume that, given the large amount of money invested by some miners into their industrial farms this would represent a VERY contentious hard fork. It is, however, also true that a novel optimization-resistant algorithm could greatly ameliorate decentralization in the bitcoin network due to a resurgence of desktop/cellphone mining. Where do the core devs stand on this matter, hypothetical as it may be? Dpinna --001a1143f1ae9d240f05211a96b8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The following paper proposing an asymmetric memory-hard PoW = had been recently published:

My intent is not to promote the paper as I have not finished= studying it myself. I am however interested in the dev-list's stance o= n potentially altering the bitcoin PoW protocol should an algorithm that gu= arantees protection from ASIC/FPGA optimization be found.

I assume that, given the large amount of money invested by s= ome miners into their industrial farms this would represent a VERY contenti= ous hard fork.

It is, however, also true that a novel optimization-resistan= t algorithm could greatly ameliorate decentralization in the bitcoin networ= k due to a resurgence of desktop/cellphone mining.

Where do the core devs stand on this matter, hypothetical as= it may be?

Dpinna

--001a1143f1ae9d240f05211a96b8--