Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

On Oct 2, 2015 12:46 PM, "NxtChg" 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

On Oct 2, 2015 10:03 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > should an algorithm that guarantees protection from ASIC/FPGA optimization be found. This is demonstrably impossible: anything that can be done with software can be done with hardware.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

See also https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n5nws/research_paper_asymmetric_proofofwork_based_on/cvl922x Adam On 2 October 2015 at 10:20, Jorge Timón wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2015 10:03 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The recently published paper I referenced cite's the Cuckoo cycle algorithm, > discusses its limitations and explains how their proposed algorithm greatly > improves on it. They discuss

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:20 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > On Oct 2, 2015 10:03 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" > > wrote: > > should an algorithm that

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm

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