📅 Original date posted:2015-10-02
📝 Original message: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. Again.... you're probably in a WAYYY
better position to judge this than I am. My question was purely
hypothetical as I wanted to know where the core devs stand on flipping the
mining ecosystem upside down.
Thanks for your link though, I'll read it right now (before finishing the
research article i posted :) ).
Daniele
Daniele Pinna, Ph.D
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Adam Back <adam at cypherspace.org> wrote:
> There are papers demonstrating this "protection from ASIC/FPGA
> optimization" to be basically impossible
> https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf and yet people
> keep trying...
>
> See also John Tromps cuckoo cycle paper, seems close to the best you
> could expect from memory hard.
>
> Adam
>
> On 2 October 2015 at 10:02, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > The following paper proposing an asymmetric memory-hard PoW had been
> > recently published:
> >
> > http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/946.pdf
> >
> > My intent is not to promote the paper as I have not finished studying it
> > myself. 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 large amount of money invested by some miners
> into
> > their industrial farms this would represent a VERY contentious hard fork.
> >
> > It is, however, also true that a novel optimization-resistant algorithm
> > could greatly ameliorate decentralization in the bitcoin network due to a
> > resurgence of desktop/cellphone mining.
> >
> > Where do the core devs stand on this matter, hypothetical as it may be?
> >
> > Dpinna
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151002/0ca300a8/attachment-0001.html>;
Daniele Pinna [ARCHIVE] /
npub16z…jg59c
2023-06-07 17:42:18
in reply to nevent1q…favu
Author Public Key
npub16z2msvydkmd6xsjyrggnavcwrlpevfwq74x5avxrkg2dpq7cg6js5jg59cPublished at
2023-06-07 17:42:18Event JSON
{
"id": "4d1d5057256a3912305d64a0a8bfa9bd8f7f76abe22cda430162a2b1f99f15a8",
"pubkey": "d095b8308db6dba342441a113eb30e1fc39625c0f54d4eb0c3b214d083d846a5",
"created_at": 1686159738,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2b79b58114f32b2079d86393874136c9ba3a04ef542325625ff3b84f1b55c376",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2300c046bedb7bac22568b9fa6a2e5c475ccfd91da788bffb37c3d2f7549d2aa",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-10-02\n📝 Original message:The recently published paper I referenced cite's the Cuckoo cycle\nalgorithm, discusses its limitations and explains how their proposed\nalgorithm greatly improves on it. Again.... you're probably in a WAYYY\nbetter position to judge this than I am. My question was purely\nhypothetical as I wanted to know where the core devs stand on flipping the\nmining ecosystem upside down.\n\nThanks for your link though, I'll read it right now (before finishing the\nresearch article i posted :) ).\n\nDaniele\n\nDaniele Pinna, Ph.D\n\nOn Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Adam Back \u003cadam at cypherspace.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e There are papers demonstrating this \"protection from ASIC/FPGA\n\u003e optimization\" to be basically impossible\n\u003e https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf and yet people\n\u003e keep trying...\n\u003e\n\u003e See also John Tromps cuckoo cycle paper, seems close to the best you\n\u003e could expect from memory hard.\n\u003e\n\u003e Adam\n\u003e\n\u003e On 2 October 2015 at 10:02, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e The following paper proposing an asymmetric memory-hard PoW had been\n\u003e \u003e recently published:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/946.pdf\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e My intent is not to promote the paper as I have not finished studying it\n\u003e \u003e myself. I am however interested in the dev-list's stance on potentially\n\u003e \u003e altering the bitcoin PoW protocol should an algorithm that guarantees\n\u003e \u003e protection from ASIC/FPGA optimization be found.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I assume that, given the large amount of money invested by some miners\n\u003e into\n\u003e \u003e their industrial farms this would represent a VERY contentious hard fork.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e It is, however, also true that a novel optimization-resistant algorithm\n\u003e \u003e could greatly ameliorate decentralization in the bitcoin network due to a\n\u003e \u003e resurgence of desktop/cellphone mining.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Where do the core devs stand on this matter, hypothetical as it may be?\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Dpinna\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151002/0ca300a8/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "035a55ae5a8f300eb0b9ad89052e65fbeb172978cb9ea3efab234b42e24aa5b2b71e721530c796a23d67fcf337165cc590e4ea4d96bebe1cc7fb48f7bfc58859"
}