Have you read the cuckoo cycle paper? Finding cycles in massive graphs is just about the worst thing to use an ASIC for.
It might be a hitherto before unknown emergent property of cryptocurrencies in general that POW *must* change every 7-9 years. Could bake that into the protocol too... On Apr 9, 2017 7:51 PM, "David Vorick" <david.vor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 9, 2017 7:00 PM, "Jared Lee Richardson via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > I can speak from personal experience regarding another very prominent > altcoin that attempted to utilize an asic-resistant proof of work > algorithm, it is only a matter of time before the "asic resistant" > algorithm gets its own Asics. The more complicated the algorithm, the more > secretive the asic technology is developed. Even without it, > multi-megawatt gpu farms have already formed in the areas of the world with > low energy costs. I'd support the goal if I thought it possible, but I > really don't think centralization of mining can be prevented. > > On Apr 9, 2017 1:16 PM, "Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev" < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Curious: I'm not sure why a serious discussion of POW change is not on >> the table as a part of a longer-term roadmap. >> >> Done right, a ramp down of reliance on SHA-256 and a ramp-up on some of >> the proven, np-complete graph-theoretic or polygon manipulation POW would >> keep Bitcoin in commodity hardware and out of the hands of centralized >> manufacturing for many years. >> >> Clearly a level-playing field is critical to keeping centralization from >> being a "defining feature" of Bitcoin over the long term. I've heard the >> term "level playing field" bandied about quite a bit. And it seems to me >> that the risk of state actor control and botnet attacks is less than >> state-actor manipulation of specialized manufacturing of "SHA-256 forever" >> hardware. Indeed, the reliance on a fairly simple hash seems less and >> less likely a "feature" and more of a baggage. >> >> Perhaps regular, high-consensus POW changes might even be *necessary* as >> a part of good maintenance of cryptocurrency in general. Killing the >> existing POW, and using an as-yet undefined, but deployment-bit ready POW >> field to flip-flop between the current and the "next one" every 8 years or >> or so, with a ramp down beginning in the 7th year.... A stub function that >> is guaranteed to fail unless a new consensus POW is selected within 7 >> years. >> >> Something like that? >> >> Haven't thought about it *that* much, but I think the network would >> respond well to a well known cutover date. This would enable >> rapid-response to quantum tech, or some other needed POW switch as well... >> because the mechanisms would be in-place and ready to switch as needed. >> >> Lots of people seem to panic over POW changes as "irresponsible", but >> it's only irresponsible if done irresponsibly. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > The real bottleneck today is the amount of capex required to achieve > optimal mining. I am strongly in favor of PoW research that investigates > better PoW, but I do not think that any obvious strategies are known yet to > improve substantially on computation heavy hashcash. >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
