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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CC161A11
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:20:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com
[209.85.212.171])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 123F512C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:20:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so20797339wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=R4worpVbHTFeDYH0VSkRY1hLKjRGlkJSKHL6rhzY3gA=;
b=UQmWRWksdZ/onJHwKgrmZuuFev+yCFDUFL4pJXq2FBxgwq0DNTVFNrgp8zY/RoDWr1
jme/1Z2i2Kq3mSzq9iWbzS3hiL7OghycP/TsIF/2cM3L5bFYIsi6jw4GQmbsBL2NU3iz
QuT0QnObXgm8GtV7W06nqmXmEJuHgMPMn1q/aUpNJH6NtDpxXaHFcRXyeIoLujoyc2rS
muor6lu+/hzmsaFcz2DgP1pJIkbJqIcoFNHM6ae6W9rjQEadk2VkQkCjt/Xhwt3SU9r1
wf15QFRXEcC9uVFYcxzFU7kAB0lWMslSDMb5YAp+go+8mHngW1kPC/XSIJ8y7V+gQhT4
99Wg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn2m21csiVvLJzTuLx5StBBcGn0+G2VZa/ui4uClrrtjwEEoFuBmCTtjBYdsA4z765oZYYc
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.102.195 with SMTP id fq3mr3042177wib.7.1443774056535;
Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.114.199 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.114.199 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAEgR2PFQtr78B3t147=3Ko4VnTGevb0QCySk=hDSqeFHZk=MPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEgR2PFQtr78B3t147=3Ko4VnTGevb0QCySk=hDSqeFHZk=MPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:20:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrOt2m6xfYjtVJne6Cm2nawXtA2-a4y7kaEA1fEgkUUUA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Daniele Pinna <daniele.pinna@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04447df9c6af1805211ad741
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
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 08:20:58 -0000
--f46d04447df9c6af1805211ad741
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Oct 2, 2015 10:03 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> should an algorithm that guarantees protection from ASIC/FPGA
optimization be found.
This is demonstrably impossible: anything that can be done with software
can be done with hardware. This is computer science 101.
And specialized hardware can always be more efficient, at least
energy-wise.
On the other hand, BIP99 explicitly contemplates "anti-miner hardforks"
(obviously not for so called "ASIC-resistance" [an absurd term coined to
promote some altcoins], but just for restarting the ASIC and mining market
in case mining becomes too centralized).
--f46d04447df9c6af1805211ad741
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Oct 2, 2015 10:03 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" <<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linu=
xfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> should an algorithm that guarantees protection from ASIC/FPGA optimiza=
tion be found.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">This is demonstrably impossible: anything that can be done w=
ith software can be done with hardware. This is computer science 101.<br>
And specialized hardware can always be more efficient, at least energy-wise=
. </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">On the other hand, BIP99 explicitly contemplates "anti-=
miner hardforks" (obviously not for so called "ASIC-resistance&qu=
ot; [an absurd term coined to promote some altcoins], but just for restarti=
ng the ASIC and mining market in case mining becomes too centralized).</p>
--f46d04447df9c6af1805211ad741--
|
