📅 Original date posted:2017-04-10
📝 Original message:On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
That would force hard forks, cause huge governance problems on selecting
the new PoW algorithm, and probably cause even worse mining chip
manufacturer centralization because it would force miners to buy new chips
instead of sticking with the ones they've already got. They'll likely have
to keep buying new ones anyway as technology improves but it doesn't help
to force that process to go even faster.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170410/021b108b/attachment.html>;
Bram Cohen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ld…t8ur6
2023-06-07 17:59:52
in reply to nevent1q…7xj9
Author Public Key
npub1ldcq03p2qe58u0xnlwa35wchjuhz49y6ueu5ghmtjetez9xstnvsmt8ur6Published at
2023-06-07 17:59:52Event JSON
{
"id": "aa0cea54928e4a43252e796af02e908ceb58bda04f11ccd793504cb4b2fe407c",
"pubkey": "fb7007c42a06687e3cd3fbbb1a3b17972e2a949ae679445f6b96579114d05cd9",
"created_at": 1686160792,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"b3abda28c58fcdd36a7f3d79347d12387effc8cb5f326fca3c05e821d4348755",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"bfac70ad487a3bd57023c6399009bf43a313aeb3cb3a16fdc27bfe8ca8a0fee0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fb7007c42a06687e3cd3fbbb1a3b17972e2a949ae679445f6b96579114d05cd9"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-04-10\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e Perhaps regular, high-consensus POW changes might even be *necessary* as a\n\u003e part of good maintenance of cryptocurrency in general. Killing the\n\u003e existing POW, and using an as-yet undefined, but deployment-bit ready POW\n\u003e field to flip-flop between the current and the \"next one\" every 8 years or\n\u003e or so, with a ramp down beginning in the 7th year.... A stub function that\n\u003e is guaranteed to fail unless a new consensus POW is selected within 7\n\u003e years.\n\u003e\n\nThat would force hard forks, cause huge governance problems on selecting\nthe new PoW algorithm, and probably cause even worse mining chip\nmanufacturer centralization because it would force miners to buy new chips\ninstead of sticking with the ones they've already got. They'll likely have\nto keep buying new ones anyway as technology improves but it doesn't help\nto force that process to go even faster.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170410/021b108b/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "1926061be950111963fb8d3ede98c2eb2cdaed193c86357907c385bf4f9f8185c430d6baeef023aa365f82dff1477649bba14e9adc6812249da41f1439a3bbdf"
}