> What you are focusing on is only this:
> * Proof-of-work.

Bitcoin's primary value proposition is that it's the most resistant to
change:   All other coins are these malleable things centrally
controlled and easily moved about by politics and nonsense.   So
discussions of POW changes... open up this can of worms (myself being
one of them).

 - should also discuss "proof-of-burn", where a burn is performed as a
similar investment-over-time with true loss/risk.
 - should discuss moving to sha3 (or something like it) for
everything, not just POW

> However, do note that I doubt that changing the proof-of-work function (and 
> *only* the proof-of-work function) is in any way a high priority.

Yeah, a hard fork like this would be a massive undertaking, with a
zillion "improvements" argued about for years and the final version
some minimal thing that just changes the hash algo and invalidates
legacy stuff (since back compat is not a concern).
bitcoin-dev mailing list

Reply via email to