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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1X35Hr-0004Fz-T4
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 04 Jul 2014 15:20:31 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.182; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f182.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1X35Ho-00064X-L8
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 04 Jul 2014 15:20:31 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id nu7so1971587obb.41
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 04 Jul 2014 08:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.181.74 with SMTP id du10mr13360739obc.52.1404487223153;
Fri, 04 Jul 2014 08:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 08:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5408721.UFIVL0MiXs@momentum>
References: <10566815.3CllqoMfON@momentum>
<CAAS2fgRrAOgEv7Hq4BofS5UoDPsJy3hEt34od54pY6vtEq0Agw@mail.gmail.com>
<5408721.UFIVL0MiXs@momentum>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 17:20:23 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: oInfbts1gT46AoArHXeUPtyDMkU
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3tRWuoUv8Xw5OgXRsfw4WEpTWp=UEOe-Xjt8LAr_fEPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118479a071ac804fd5faaaf
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1X35Ho-00064X-L8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] ASIC-proof mining
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 15:20:32 -0000
--089e0118479a071ac804fd5faaaf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Yup, no need to apologise. If nothing else the conversations get archived
where other people can use them to get up to speed faster. A lot of these
discussions get spread across forums, lists and IRC so it can be hard to
know what the current state of the art thinking is.
Recall the second prong of my opening argument - if you could beat ASICs,
you'd end up with botnets. I prefer having the chain be dominated by a
single pool for a while than having one with a major botnet presence, given
their history of doing things like mining empty blocks and giving random
people enormous electricity bills.
I think we can make good head way if we just optimise a lot and finish
things off, to be honest. I'm not sure we need an algorithmic silver
bullet. Remember you can always outsource mining by just not having any
hardware at all, CEX style, so trying to prevent outsourcing using clever
hacks seems ultimately doomed.
--089e0118479a071ac804fd5faaaf
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Yup, no need to apologise. If nothing else the conversatio=
ns get archived where other people can use them to get up to speed faster. =
A lot of these discussions get spread across forums, lists and IRC so it ca=
n be hard to know what the current state of the art thinking is.<div class=
=3D"gmail_extra">
<br>Recall the second prong of my opening argument - if you could beat ASIC=
s, you'd end up with botnets. I prefer having the chain be dominated by=
a single pool for a while than having one with a major botnet presence, gi=
ven their history of doing things like mining empty blocks and giving rando=
m people enormous electricity bills.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I think we =
can make good head way if we just optimise a lot and finish things off, to =
be honest. I'm not sure we need an algorithmic silver bullet. Remember =
you can always outsource mining by just not having any hardware at all, CEX=
style, so trying to prevent outsourcing using clever hacks seems ultimatel=
y doomed.</div>
</div>
--089e0118479a071ac804fd5faaaf--
|
