📅 Original date posted:2017-04-19
📝 Original message:Repeatedly hashing to make it so that lossy implementations just fail
sounds like a great idea. Also relying on a single crypto primitive which
is as simple as possible is also a great idea, and specifically using
blake2b is conservative because not only is it simple but its block size is
larger than the amount of data being hashed so asicboost-style attacks
don't apply at all and the logic of multiple blocks doesn't have to be
built.
Memory hard functions are a valiant effort and are holding up better than
expected but the problem is that when they fail they fail catastrophically,
immediately going from running on completely commodity hardware to only
running on hardware from the one vendor who's pulled off the feat of making
it work. My guess is it's only a matter of time until that happens.
So the best PoW function we know of today, assuming that you're trying to
make mining hardware as commodity as possible, is to repeatedly hash using
blake2b ten or maybe a hundred times.
Mind you, I still think hard forking the PoW function is a very bad idea,
but if you were to do it, that would be the way to go.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170419/6dddcc73/attachment.html>;
Bram Cohen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ld…t8ur6
2023-06-07 18:00:30
in reply to nevent1q…62nw
Author Public Key
npub1ldcq03p2qe58u0xnlwa35wchjuhz49y6ueu5ghmtjetez9xstnvsmt8ur6Published at
2023-06-07 18:00:30Event JSON
{
"id": "3916c4f90820ba122c8140fa62c25eac147892e41be1b164d6dcf9a7531bd6d7",
"pubkey": "fb7007c42a06687e3cd3fbbb1a3b17972e2a949ae679445f6b96579114d05cd9",
"created_at": 1686160830,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ea46271e9d88e0388863236306d6d46086b86332e1d16ae1de36104566b2ecfe",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"108c3ab8132c3caa75b2d3df7170fab69bd968b4e05dc093a14183cc9d2e6eec",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"c6d7a400897460d9a2c07bbad58731b6d04267edd75af42af45f471b04581ec2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-04-19\n📝 Original message:Repeatedly hashing to make it so that lossy implementations just fail\nsounds like a great idea. Also relying on a single crypto primitive which\nis as simple as possible is also a great idea, and specifically using\nblake2b is conservative because not only is it simple but its block size is\nlarger than the amount of data being hashed so asicboost-style attacks\ndon't apply at all and the logic of multiple blocks doesn't have to be\nbuilt.\n\nMemory hard functions are a valiant effort and are holding up better than\nexpected but the problem is that when they fail they fail catastrophically,\nimmediately going from running on completely commodity hardware to only\nrunning on hardware from the one vendor who's pulled off the feat of making\nit work. My guess is it's only a matter of time until that happens.\n\nSo the best PoW function we know of today, assuming that you're trying to\nmake mining hardware as commodity as possible, is to repeatedly hash using\nblake2b ten or maybe a hundred times.\n\nMind you, I still think hard forking the PoW function is a very bad idea,\nbut if you were to do it, that would be the way to go.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170419/6dddcc73/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "cc2c67b08a678b1bf05ec3b37d4842b6dd295c981d37c17a246129df5ddebf381e09f9fad0ee236570fb29b740ec9de25361c56872d018d1e2558723e331e4ba"
}