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
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31AF71E25
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:01:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com
[209.85.212.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 852A08E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:00:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so28343803wic.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=szXdhtlui7vcTdt7fEqPG4/8iZ6HXDr5a7zjV3KIJzQ=;
b=S3UYRxYRrkYJCXvieL0qaUPiJtEpaelkmn2X9bF6UjV199xM+NMVnSJEQ/Cbu0V60q
QoRd70l9KrJRyGRoyKGm8fCLBBHooConTMPh+8guPfzIWqq4tr62jvuE6q56ZyXSEXWw
YPNXR1FdFHJ2wTGYGScB2yzc60mE8OF89bYn7vyrEGw/a4efcrQDmEkNf/mu4OuygzjJ
aKPcTlPC5upR60HFc2VBqcjkNOHWqfGCiIF4UyUxlb5yN76g1dR/4eXlqFcD/nZMp0i2
d0RyNKfAhULuTP2UMt9n+9dFHGloeqQSlmXi6XVjywhV1LN8yU2ETvQtguEyyFrYQpmM
FmLQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm0FsoYoZubr0ONWfbwmhDEjv1ldGS4x3RmjRseccZfp3vSfZDLdI6vGkNI1s1BwMkP0gnN
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.8.106 with SMTP id q10mr3407934wia.92.1443783658388;
Fri, 02 Oct 2015 04:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.114.199 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.114.199 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20151002104630.5F7A720101@smtp.hushmail.com>
References: <CAEgR2PFQtr78B3t147=3Ko4VnTGevb0QCySk=hDSqeFHZk=MPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDrOt2m6xfYjtVJne6Cm2nawXtA2-a4y7kaEA1fEgkUUUA@mail.gmail.com>
<20151002104630.5F7A720101@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:00:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrp1SJqRKg5+cgw03BJn84oROQya05pofU4fawRT3UGkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: NxtChg <nxtchg@hush.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0421a72317549805211d14dc
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Daniele Pinna <daniele.pinna@gmail.com>
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 <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 11:01:01 -0000
--f46d0421a72317549805211d14dc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Oct 2, 2015 12:46 PM, "NxtChg" <nxtchg@hush.com> wrote:
>
>
> >...obviously not for so called "ASIC-resistance" [an absurd term coined
to promote some altcoins]
>
> Yet another fallacy of "all-or-nothing" thinking, which is so abundant in
the Core camp.
>
> The fact that you can build ASIC for any kind of algorithm _in_theory_
doesn't mean you can't make it _arbitrary_hard_ in practice.
>
> So I would tone down the arrogance a bit.
>
ASIC-RESISTANCE is simply not possible, I'm sorry if that position strikes
you as arrogant. Note that I didn't say anything about memory-hard, which
is possible (but not necessarily preferrable to
simple-to-implement-in-hardware pow algorithms).
--f46d0421a72317549805211d14dc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Oct 2, 2015 12:46 PM, "NxtChg" <<a href=3D"mailto:nxtchg@hu=
sh.com">nxtchg@hush.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> >...obviously not for so called "ASIC-resistance" [an abs=
urd term coined to promote some altcoins]<br>
><br>
> Yet another fallacy of "all-or-nothing" thinking, which is s=
o abundant in the Core camp.<br>
><br>
> The fact that you can build ASIC for any kind of algorithm _in_theory_=
doesn't mean you can't make it _arbitrary_hard_ in practice.<br>
><br>
> So I would tone down the arrogance a bit.<br>
></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">ASIC-RESISTANCE is simply not possible, I'm sorry if tha=
t position strikes you as arrogant. Note that I didn't say anything abo=
ut memory-hard, which is possible (but not necessarily preferrable to simpl=
e-to-implement-in-hardware pow algorithms).</p>
--f46d0421a72317549805211d14dc--
|
