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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from
<SRS0=z7hOrB5e=37=jerviss.org=bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org>)
id 1X37Fd-0004AU-28 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 04 Jul 2014 17:26:21 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from serv.jerviss.org ([12.47.47.47] helo=inana.jerviss.org)
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1X37Fb-0006Og-Lx
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 04 Jul 2014 17:26:20 +0000
Received: from [10.8.2.254] ([192.151.168.84])
(username: kjj authenticated by PLAIN symmetric_key_bits=0)
by inana.jerviss.org (8.13.6/8.12.11) with ESMTP id s64Go0Mu030255
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT);
Fri, 4 Jul 2014 11:50:06 -0500
Message-ID: <53B6DB38.7010709@jerviss.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 11:50:00 -0500
From: kjj <bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64;
rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
References: <10566815.3CllqoMfON@momentum>
In-Reply-To: <10566815.3CllqoMfON@momentum>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (inana.jerviss.org: 192.151.168.84 is authenticated by a
trusted mechanism)
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1X37Fb-0006Og-Lx
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 17:26:21 -0000
Just some general comments on this topic/discussion.
I suspect that there exist no algorithms which cannot be done better in
an application-specific device than in a general purpose computer. And
if there is such a thing, then it must necessarily perform best on one
specific platform, making that platform the de facto application
specific device.
I'm not sure how one would go about proving or disproving that, but it
seems very likely to be true.
IO-bound is exactly the same as memory bound, for devices that have
enough memory. 20 GB is already trivial today, and you don't really get
into ask-the-wife-for-permission money until you cross 128 GB. The
exception would be if the IO was to an oracle outside of the device's
control, and artificially limited in throughput. Such a centralized
oracle would be contrary to the goals usually stated by people thinking
about anti-ASIC designs, so there isn't much point.
Keeping the algorithm simple, and ASIC-easy, has one other advantage.
Just about anyone can sit down and design an ASIC for SHA, for example,
leading to diversity in the marketplace. A harder algorithm can still
be made into an ASIC (or more generally into an ASD), but will require
more skilled designers, more expensive fabrication, etc. This actually
concentrates the ASIC advantage into the hands of fewer people, which
again, is contrary to the stated goals.
|
