MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKg+tYK9j5LTwokMGutD+-SjBQ70U=X7rqHMGSeaG2NEo9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJR7vkpRhNsQsem-nFkeubX04xx1y7aHwCENfg0d1266oOsXMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<Cwhn7YzwaDUZtOygDAgrU1UXjRPG-EiH3Fyz2c95gqOpNnNbiYL1NvhS28yK5wLJCnIqDaBrM6c574dY-O6_-bRjLIFmDe2NCxIuyV1w2dw=@protonmail.com>
	<CAJowKg+tYK9j5LTwokMGutD+-SjBQ70U=X7rqHMGSeaG2NEo9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:16:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD1TkXvjtd-LBt6sC=DrkPwk-owRCMEUCEdB9WAVL4LsnTOOSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c07adbc2afa02054cc25f37
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit
Precedence: list

--94eb2c07adbc2afa02054cc25f37
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I can speak from personal experience regarding another very prominent
altcoin that attempted to utilize an asic-resistant proof of work
algorithm, it is only a matter of time before the "asic resistant"
algorithm gets its own Asics.  The more complicated the algorithm, the more
secretive the asic technology is developed.  Even without it,
multi-megawatt gpu farms have already formed in the areas of the world with
low energy costs.  I'd support the goal if I thought it possible, but I
really don't think centralization of mining can be prevented.

On Apr 9, 2017 1:16 PM, "Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Curious: I'm not sure why a serious discussion of POW change is not on the
> table as a part of a longer-term roadmap.
>
> Done right, a ramp down of reliance on SHA-256 and a ramp-up on some of
> the proven, np-complete graph-theoretic or polygon manipulation POW would
> keep Bitcoin in commodity hardware and out of the hands of centralized
> manufacturing for many years.
>
> Clearly a level-playing field is critical to keeping centralization from
> being a "defining feature" of Bitcoin over the long term.   I've heard the
> term "level playing field" bandied about quite a bit.   And it seems to me
> that the risk of state actor control and botnet attacks is less than
> state-actor manipulation of specialized manufacturing of "SHA-256 forever"
> hardware.   Indeed, the reliance on a fairly simple hash seems less and
> less likely a "feature" and more of a baggage.
>
> 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.
>
> Something like that?
>
> Haven't thought about it *that* much, but I think the network would
> respond well to a well known cutover date.   This would enable
> rapid-response to quantum tech, or some other needed POW switch as well...
> because the mechanisms would be in-place and ready to switch as needed.
>
> Lots of people seem to panic over POW changes as "irresponsible", but it's
> only irresponsible if done irresponsibly.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:48 PM, praxeology_guy via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Jimmy Song,
>>
>> Why would the actual end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term
>> owners of bitcoins) who run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin
>> policy in order to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack?
>>
>> If anything, we would be making policy changes to prevent the use of
>> patented PoW algorithms instead of making changes to enable them.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Praxeology Guy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--94eb2c07adbc2afa02054cc25f37
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">I can speak from personal experience regarding another ve=
ry prominent altcoin that attempted to utilize an asic-resistant proof of w=
ork algorithm, it is only a matter of time before the &quot;asic resistant&=
quot; algorithm gets its own Asics.=C2=A0 The more complicated the algorith=
m, the more secretive the asic technology is developed.=C2=A0 Even without =
it, multi-megawatt gpu farms have already formed in the areas of the world =
with low energy costs.=C2=A0 I&#39;d support the goal if I thought it possi=
ble, but I really don&#39;t think centralization of mining can be prevented=
.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Apr 9, =
2017 1:16 PM, &quot;Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation=
.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">=
<div dir=3D"ltr">Curious: I&#39;m not sure why a serious discussion of POW =
change is not on the table as a part of a longer-term roadmap.<br><br>Done =
right, a ramp down of reliance on SHA-256 and a ramp-up on some of the prov=
en, np-complete graph-theoretic or polygon manipulation POW would keep Bitc=
oin in commodity hardware and out of the hands of centralized manufacturing=
 for many years. =C2=A0 <br><br>Clearly a level-playing field is critical t=
o keeping centralization from being a &quot;defining feature&quot; of Bitco=
in over the long term. =C2=A0 I&#39;ve heard the term &quot;level playing f=
ield&quot; bandied about quite a bit. =C2=A0 And it seems to me that the ri=
sk of state actor control and botnet attacks is less than state-actor manip=
ulation of specialized manufacturing of &quot;SHA-256 forever&quot; hardwar=
e. =C2=A0 Indeed, the reliance on a fairly simple hash seems less and less =
likely a &quot;feature&quot; and more of a baggage.<div><br></div><div>Perh=
aps regular, high-consensus POW changes might even be *necessary* as a part=
 of good maintenance of cryptocurrency in general. =C2=A0 Killing the exist=
ing POW, and using an as-yet undefined, but deployment-bit ready POW field =
to flip-flop between the current and the &quot;next one&quot; every 8 years=
 or or so, with a ramp down beginning in the 7th year....=C2=A0 A stub func=
tion that is guaranteed to fail unless a new consensus POW is selected with=
in 7 years. =C2=A0 <br><br>Something like that? =C2=A0 <br><br>Haven&#39;t =
thought about it *that* much, but I think the network would respond well to=
 a well known cutover date. =C2=A0 This would enable rapid-response to quan=
tum tech, or some other needed POW switch as well... because the mechanisms=
 would be in-place and ready to switch as needed.</div><div><br></div><div>=
Lots of people seem to panic over POW changes as &quot;irresponsible&quot;,=
 but it&#39;s only irresponsible if done irresponsibly.</div><div><br></div=
></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Ap=
r 7, 2017 at 9:48 PM, praxeology_guy via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Jimmy Song,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Why w=
ould the actual end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term owners o=
f bitcoins) who run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin policy in =
order to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack?<br></div><div><br>=
</div><div>If anything, we would be making policy changes to prevent the us=
e of patented PoW algorithms instead of making changes to enable them.<br><=
/div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,<br></div><div>Praxeology Guy<br></div><br>=
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>

--94eb2c07adbc2afa02054cc25f37--