Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C54CD1B92 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:31:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A99028F for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C123310801D0; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:31:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:151002:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::ibd/3nCGAhjAJdVl:1U1J X-Hashcash: 1:25:151002:daniele.pinna@gmail.com::ySYvcoT+wBuI+Xv9:Q1vF From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Daniele Pinna Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:31:21 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.6-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201510022131.22411.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 21:31:53 -0000 On Friday, October 02, 2015 8:02:43 AM Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 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? Besides ASIC-proof being even tehoretically impossible, assuming we had a PoW that worked using mere RAM-as-the-ASIC, this would probably not be good in the long term for decentralisation, as it is only a matter of time until botnets would bankrupt all the legitimate miners out of operation. Restarting the mining with a new algorithm as a reaction and defence against centralised hoarding of mining ASICs (as we are seeing now), would be acceptable. It would not necessarily be contentions *to the economy*, as such hoarding-miners do not participate in the economy in any meaningful way (they do not accept payments from other bitcoin users). Luke