Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CC161A11 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:20:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com [209.85.212.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 123F512C for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:20:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so20797339wic.0 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:20:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=R4worpVbHTFeDYH0VSkRY1hLKjRGlkJSKHL6rhzY3gA=; b=UQmWRWksdZ/onJHwKgrmZuuFev+yCFDUFL4pJXq2FBxgwq0DNTVFNrgp8zY/RoDWr1 jme/1Z2i2Kq3mSzq9iWbzS3hiL7OghycP/TsIF/2cM3L5bFYIsi6jw4GQmbsBL2NU3iz QuT0QnObXgm8GtV7W06nqmXmEJuHgMPMn1q/aUpNJH6NtDpxXaHFcRXyeIoLujoyc2rS muor6lu+/hzmsaFcz2DgP1pJIkbJqIcoFNHM6ae6W9rjQEadk2VkQkCjt/Xhwt3SU9r1 wf15QFRXEcC9uVFYcxzFU7kAB0lWMslSDMb5YAp+go+8mHngW1kPC/XSIJ8y7V+gQhT4 99Wg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn2m21csiVvLJzTuLx5StBBcGn0+G2VZa/ui4uClrrtjwEEoFuBmCTtjBYdsA4z765oZYYc MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.102.195 with SMTP id fq3mr3042177wib.7.1443774056535; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:20:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.114.199 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.114.199 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 01:20:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:20:55 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Daniele Pinna Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04447df9c6af1805211ad741 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dev-list's stance on potentially altering the PoW algorithm X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 08:20:58 -0000 --f46d04447df9c6af1805211ad741 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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. This is computer science 101. And specialized hardware can always be more efficient, at least energy-wise. On the other hand, BIP99 explicitly contemplates "anti-miner hardforks" (obviously not for so called "ASIC-resistance" [an absurd term coined to promote some altcoins], but just for restarting the ASIC and mining market in case mining becomes too centralized). --f46d04447df9c6af1805211ad741 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Oct 2, 2015 10:03 AM, "Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linu= xfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> should an algorithm that guarantees protection from ASIC/FPGA optimiza= tion be found.

This is demonstrably impossible: anything that can be done w= ith software can be done with hardware. This is computer science 101.
And specialized hardware can always be more efficient, at least energy-wise= .

On the other hand, BIP99 explicitly contemplates "anti-= miner hardforks" (obviously not for so called "ASIC-resistance&qu= ot; [an absurd term coined to promote some altcoins], but just for restarti= ng the ASIC and mining market in case mining becomes too centralized).

--f46d04447df9c6af1805211ad741--