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
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38CC9213C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:45:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com (mail-ig0-f175.google.com
[209.85.213.175])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B325D2DD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:45:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igcrk20 with SMTP id rk20so21396683igc.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=tCKoKXUM4DJF9J7QH3ueAEYrtKt79kbN51SNwhCj4Hw=;
b=S9TZBOD4SPpwLKoohDnPkOut5iBRFyf/9gbKtM7n6GDvYoX+foCYCvQHlPCnBjf7F8
SoCvwypX29KUaq1dCoeVOhlQ7CjKHZvDY2uyPlfpFmkDgS+ekqXX9nHMnMwUKf9lTCS8
H4EAbOcX5SsE4VV9B1wsRWEs7D92IqN7HWOWeOp4H36TimdhidvWMniugmMdCHN7zJUw
xk4kVoo/aoeomBLt8zWf0/uEbvyv9Ys+5DeecIiIlC90H0JaDkYEisDLuLRVR+0/lMUY
CxD0YUoUNrDLPdpvUSHCK2nayBrLy3vg1fgvgJsiNZ4g1fiaNzts2TK1Bb0Bq/SfxB0b
o1aA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.62.227 with SMTP id b3mr5109627igs.48.1443804345232; Fri,
02 Oct 2015 09:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.19.30 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAEgR2PFCLKSDveHQ1xZX0zSdT6_C=ee0-JCQ3REARhCLU6nCYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEgR2PFQtr78B3t147=3Ko4VnTGevb0QCySk=hDSqeFHZk=MPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTH6r8eJN2Xw+nn1z=6x9Q3TRSQQ6ZMXsmHPyX8dNx+EgA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEgR2PFCLKSDveHQ1xZX0zSdT6_C=ee0-JCQ3REARhCLU6nCYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:45:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTSjnjk60_c0nc4UYYV-w3ZonO_6HuLW+k-SVPyCSc-jQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Daniele Pinna <daniele.pinna@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 16:45:46 -0000
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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.
They discuss a very old version of the Cuckoo cycle paper, and I
believe none of their analysis is applicable to the most recent
revision. :(
In any case, I commented more about functions of this class here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n5nws/research_paper_asymmetric_proofofwork_based_on/cvl922x
I don't believe changing the POW function is impossible in principle,
but I expect it would only happen due to problems with the composition
of current hash-power and not even if it were universally agreed that
some other construction were technically better (though that is a high
bar.)
|
