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
|
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 CC11AD14
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:02:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f44.google.com (mail-vk0-f44.google.com
[209.85.213.44])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 367AD87
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:02:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by vkat63 with SMTP id t63so55279240vka.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=3C13jJRQPr+hFWAGjlR/6USg04uW+srOxpKR/RSpO3Q=;
b=xZxZ+5ky6CMQ5ch5EIntxKzkYjOzlsvQA8YBN2Y0y50QcBFXRwjDpnULAAOAFK8XbD
suXTpfgUeXrk1iCO882pqSIDNuvNZFP3P6vBcwdEk6D7a94CEIAGdYo3KQGMidmbomUE
+sYyJWFq2Z8Um6ln5RwzXH3/vW2sY2xrZCroLK/fAUBl6U+fCb7to4o1l57EDU5RCBWs
Tgln6/AD2nRmySOBHc4NMKwNH52tex02dlOJLpTusFG79+IcS2tb/hakJ1ALKuGuZHh9
axjXE+KU/ZqDedm07cMFrrRMUx1X3vuqfdhd684fZlA3iMGPyh4cxcjJbQgc1NsH7BOI
ERTQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.49.213 with SMTP id x204mr9838000vkx.51.1443772963298;
Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.1.69 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.1.69 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:02:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEgR2PFQtr78B3t147=3Ko4VnTGevb0QCySk=hDSqeFHZk=MPQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniele Pinna <daniele.pinna@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143f1ae9d240f05211a96b8
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: [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 08:02:44 -0000
--001a1143f1ae9d240f05211a96b8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
--001a1143f1ae9d240f05211a96b8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">The following paper proposing an asymmetric memory-hard PoW =
had been recently published:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr"><a href=3D"http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/946.pdf">http://eprin=
t.iacr.org/2015/946.pdf</a></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">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 o=
n potentially altering the bitcoin PoW protocol should an algorithm that gu=
arantees protection from ASIC/FPGA optimization be found. </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I assume that, given the large amount of money invested by s=
ome miners into their industrial farms this would represent a VERY contenti=
ous hard fork. </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">It is, however, also true that a novel optimization-resistan=
t algorithm could greatly ameliorate decentralization in the bitcoin networ=
k due to a resurgence of desktop/cellphone mining. </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Where do the core devs stand on this matter, hypothetical as=
it may be? </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Dpinna</p>
--001a1143f1ae9d240f05211a96b8--
|
