Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFFF618AD for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:31:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com (mail-vk0-f45.google.com [209.85.213.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4E5F12C for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:31:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkfp126 with SMTP id p126so55790303vkf.3 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:31:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=iJj2/ck/QhaBFuZCiEH4Xe8CbrNcgdhxpAmGNjdD7t8=; b=cGf8gl6kv5ESV1owSYY+uS+x7912MzJ0pk16FzstmPw6HWiKREm0FQo/3giDrzGq6Z sp/8TLxKsEvuKanfSKCh9vXqbwkcMAECdowOQoGjcULm35mDaBQTymR1IQj8xPuDpN+x w5bjWbpt+K5NEJnJJVs0Moj5XF0ElexPyNFdwOBjjerfS7QrUCgxh8NiALFJbMs8KMVd XUVHT9tOqTsGsVXBl0OBIKYtUaSSA4xOmUhYb2hVPDwqYRtWhr9kkWWXVw/PNaKvcSLR PirnLACkeDIcgMffA2yYLxfQu1X5igNrPSAhERDOJ+AtrxvCdXWEwWvSYVp+b7W7zZiy AxxA== X-Received: by 10.31.2.79 with SMTP id 76mr9463496vkc.32.1443774659965; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:30:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.1.69 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:30:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Daniele Pinna Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:30:40 +0200 Message-ID: To: Adam Back , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c02b5cbe394205211afb9c 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: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 08:31:01 -0000 --001a11c02b5cbe394205211afb9c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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. Again.... you're probably in a WAYYY better position to judge this than I am. My question was purely hypothetical as I wanted to know where the core devs stand on flipping the mining ecosystem upside down. Thanks for your link though, I'll read it right now (before finishing the research article i posted :) ). Daniele Daniele Pinna, Ph.D On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Adam Back wrote: > There are papers demonstrating this "protection from ASIC/FPGA > optimization" to be basically impossible > https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf and yet people > keep trying... > > See also John Tromps cuckoo cycle paper, seems close to the best you > could expect from memory hard. > > Adam > > On 2 October 2015 at 10:02, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > --001a11c02b5cbe394205211afb9c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The recently published paper I referenced cite's = the Cuckoo cycle algorithm, discusses its limitations and explains how thei= r proposed algorithm greatly improves on it. Again.... you're probably = in a WAYYY better position to judge this than I am. My question was purely = hypothetical as I wanted to know where the core devs stand on flipping the = mining ecosystem upside down.

Thanks for your link though= , I'll read it right now (before finishing the research article i poste= d :) ).

Daniele

Daniele Pinna, Ph.D

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Adam Back <= span dir=3D"ltr"><adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
There are papers demonstrating this "protection from ASIC/FPGA optimization" to be basically impossible
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq= .pdf and yet people
keep trying...

See also John Tromps cuckoo cycle paper, seems close to the best you
could expect from memory hard.

Adam

On 2 October 2015 at 10:02, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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 potent= ially
> altering the bitcoin PoW protocol should an algorithm that guarantees<= br> > 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 fo= rk.
>
> It is, however, also true that a novel optimization-resistant algorith= m
> could greatly ameliorate decentralization in the bitcoin network due t= o a
> resurgence of desktop/cellphone mining.
>
> Where do the core devs stand on this matter, hypothetical as it may be= ?
>
> Dpinna
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--001a11c02b5cbe394205211afb9c--