To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Marek Palatinus <marek@palatinus.cz>,
	Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
References: <20160510185728.GA1149@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CAE-z3OWvLqONwaN+608jBn9=q1yUvU4ggGrMpA8rE6qmjDQHtg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKzdR-ou2FYjjxmRBLARhvfhHO-46weiMc2Q2f+GZf1E_JUEAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKzdR-pFZGsQZPrHRbJhviFemSLPf8Bo6UWSaaQ-BurCsnAAWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJna-HjM-4D4EXMkeSSquRT3r0TMWd+zL8ZRZZ5iQfesqZdB2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<57339DC5.7060704@mattcorallo.com>
From: Simon Liu <simon@bitcartel.com>
Message-ID: <5733AF5A.6070207@bitcartel.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 15:16:58 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57339DC5.7060704@mattcorallo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant
Precedence: list

On 05/11/2016 02:01 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Indeed, I think the "ASICs are bad, because 1-CPU-1-vote" arguments
> mostly died out long ago, and, indeed, the goal that many making those
> arguments had of building "unoptimizeable" ASICs failed with them.

Discussion quietened down but never went away.  With centralization of
mining in China, the topic is up for discussion again.  For example,
Z.Cash will now use Equihash as their proof-of-work scheme.

> giving one
> manufacturer/licenser a huge influence in who is successful in a market
> that we're all relying on remaining rather flat.

Central planning is a slippery slope.  Let the market decide the winners
and losers.  It's not feasible to hard fork every time an innovation or
perceived unfair advantage appears in the space.

--Simon