Good morning devrandom, > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj: > > > When considering any new proof-of-foo, it is best to consider all effects > > until you reach the base physics of the arrow of time, at which point you > > will realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway. > > Let's not simplify away economic considerations, such as externalities. The > whole debate about the current PoW is about negative externalities related to > energy production. > > Depending on the details, CAPEX (R&D, real-estate, construction, production) > may have less externalities, and if that's the case, we should be interested > in adopting a PoW that is intensive in these types of CAPEX.
Then let us also not forget another important externality: possible optimizations of a new PoW algorithm that risk being put into some kind of exclusive patent. I think with high probability that SHA256d as used by Bitcoin will no longer have an optimization as large in effect as ASICBOOST in the future, simply because there is a huge incentive to find such optimizations and Bitcoin has been using SHA256d for 12 years already, and we have already found ASICBOOST (and while patented, as I understand it the patent owner has promised not to enforce the patent --- my understanding may be wrong). Any alternative PoW algorithm risks an ASICBOOST-like optimization that is currently unknown, but which will be discovered (and possibly patented by an owner that *will* enforce the patent, thus putting the entire ecosystem at direct conflict with legacy government structures) once there is a good incentive (i.e. use in Bitcoin) for it. Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
