1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
|
Return-Path: <daniele.pinna@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFFF618AD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:31:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com (mail-vk0-f45.google.com
[209.85.213.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4E5F12C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:31:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by vkfp126 with SMTP id p126so55790303vkf.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:content-type; bh=iJj2/ck/QhaBFuZCiEH4Xe8CbrNcgdhxpAmGNjdD7t8=;
b=cGf8gl6kv5ESV1owSYY+uS+x7912MzJ0pk16FzstmPw6HWiKREm0FQo/3giDrzGq6Z
sp/8TLxKsEvuKanfSKCh9vXqbwkcMAECdowOQoGjcULm35mDaBQTymR1IQj8xPuDpN+x
w5bjWbpt+K5NEJnJJVs0Moj5XF0ElexPyNFdwOBjjerfS7QrUCgxh8NiALFJbMs8KMVd
XUVHT9tOqTsGsVXBl0OBIKYtUaSSA4xOmUhYb2hVPDwqYRtWhr9kkWWXVw/PNaKvcSLR
PirnLACkeDIcgMffA2yYLxfQu1X5igNrPSAhERDOJ+AtrxvCdXWEwWvSYVp+b7W7zZiy
AxxA==
X-Received: by 10.31.2.79 with SMTP id 76mr9463496vkc.32.1443774659965; Fri,
02 Oct 2015 01:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.1.69 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTH6r8eJN2Xw+nn1z=6x9Q3TRSQQ6ZMXsmHPyX8dNx+EgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEgR2PFQtr78B3t147=3Ko4VnTGevb0QCySk=hDSqeFHZk=MPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTH6r8eJN2Xw+nn1z=6x9Q3TRSQQ6ZMXsmHPyX8dNx+EgA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniele Pinna <daniele.pinna@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:30:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEgR2PFCLKSDveHQ1xZX0zSdT6_C=ee0-JCQ3REARhCLU6nCYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c02b5cbe394205211afb9c
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: 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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 08:31:01 -0000
--001a11c02b5cbe394205211afb9c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
The recently published paper I referenced cite's the Cuckoo cycle
algorithm, discusses its limitations and explains how their proposed
algorithm greatly improves on it. Again.... you're probably in a WAYYY
better position to judge this than I am. My question was purely
hypothetical as I wanted to know where the core devs stand on flipping the
mining ecosystem upside down.
Thanks for your link though, I'll read it right now (before finishing the
research article i posted :) ).
Daniele
Daniele Pinna, Ph.D
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
> There are papers demonstrating this "protection from ASIC/FPGA
> optimization" to be basically impossible
> https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf and yet people
> keep trying...
>
> See also John Tromps cuckoo cycle paper, seems close to the best you
> could expect from memory hard.
>
> Adam
>
> On 2 October 2015 at 10:02, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>
--001a11c02b5cbe394205211afb9c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The recently published paper I referenced cite's =
the Cuckoo cycle algorithm, discusses its limitations and explains how thei=
r proposed algorithm greatly improves on it. Again.... you're probably =
in a WAYYY better position to judge this than I am. My question was purely =
hypothetical as I wanted to know where the core devs stand on flipping the =
mining ecosystem upside down.<br><br></div><div>Thanks for your link though=
, I'll read it right now (before finishing the research article i poste=
d :) ).<br></div><div><br></div>Daniele<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"=
><br clear=3D"all"><div><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><di=
v>Daniele Pinna, Ph.D</div></div></div></div>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Adam Back <=
span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:adam@cypherspace.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk">adam@cypherspace.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left=
:1ex">There are papers demonstrating this "protection from ASIC/FPGA<b=
r>
optimization" to be basically impossible<br>
<a href=3D"https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf" rel=3D"nor=
eferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq=
.pdf</a> and yet people<br>
keep trying...<br>
<br>
See also John Tromps cuckoo cycle paper, seems close to the best you<br>
could expect from memory hard.<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<br>
On 2 October 2015 at 10:02, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev<br>
<div><div class=3D"h5"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat=
ion.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> The following paper proposing an asymmetric memory-hard PoW had been<b=
r>
> recently published:<br>
><br>
> <a href=3D"http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/946.pdf" rel=3D"noreferrer" tar=
get=3D"_blank">http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/946.pdf</a><br>
><br>
> My intent is not to promote the paper as I have not finished studying =
it<br>
> myself. I am however interested in the dev-list's stance on potent=
ially<br>
> altering the bitcoin PoW protocol should an algorithm that guarantees<=
br>
> protection from ASIC/FPGA optimization be found.<br>
><br>
> I assume that, given the large amount of money invested by some miners=
into<br>
> their industrial farms this would represent a VERY contentious hard fo=
rk.<br>
><br>
> It is, however, also true that a novel optimization-resistant algorith=
m<br>
> could greatly ameliorate decentralization in the bitcoin network due t=
o a<br>
> resurgence of desktop/cellphone mining.<br>
><br>
> Where do the core devs stand on this matter, hypothetical as it may be=
?<br>
><br>
> Dpinna<br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div>> _______________________________________________<br>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11c02b5cbe394205211afb9c--
|
