MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEgR2PFCLKSDveHQ1xZX0zSdT6_C=ee0-JCQ3REARhCLU6nCYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEgR2PFQtr78B3t147=3Ko4VnTGevb0QCySk=hDSqeFHZk=MPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTH6r8eJN2Xw+nn1z=6x9Q3TRSQQ6ZMXsmHPyX8dNx+EgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEgR2PFCLKSDveHQ1xZX0zSdT6_C=ee0-JCQ3REARhCLU6nCYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:45:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTSjnjk60_c0nc4UYYV-w3ZonO_6HuLW+k-SVPyCSc-jQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Daniele Pinna <daniele.pinna@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW
	algorithm
Precedence: list

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 a very old version of the Cuckoo cycle paper, and I
believe none of their analysis is applicable to the most recent
revision. :(

In any case, I commented more about functions of this class here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n5nws/research_paper_asymmetric_proofofwork_based_on/cvl922x

I don't believe changing the POW function is impossible in principle,
but I expect it would only happen due to problems with the composition
of current hash-power and not even if it were universally agreed that
some other construction were technically better (though that is a high
bar.)