MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 22:28:56 -0300
From: bfd@cock.lu
To: erik@q32.com, Erik Aronesty <earonesty@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKg+dZr-PcHfCY5AO2BO8_-5QfwzvG3PuJA+mTLWw9=a-Og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BL2PR03MB435F510935FC7E230118AD3EE380@BL2PR03MB435.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAAy62_K5ePDuvVn8=DtwJX6ek00Z_r4u9LyA0W11vgZmQ=zzDg@mail.gmail.com>
	<0690791a46d7a7699fc3427e92a76e9b.squirrel@mail.fairluck.net>
	<CAJowKg+dZr-PcHfCY5AO2BO8_-5QfwzvG3PuJA+mTLWw9=a-Og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <461f7ce7a17c5765daadc461cdd3373c@cock.lu>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.3
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Malice Reactive Proof of Work Additions (MR
 POWA): Protecting Bitcoin from malicious miners
Precedence: list


On 2017-04-16 17:04, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> This is a great solution.
> 
> 8 or more secure hashes, each of which can be implemented on GPU/CPU,
> but rotate through them - per block round robin.
> 
> Hardware, infrastructue investment is protected.  ASIC is not.
> 

The write time for configuring a FPGA with a fresh bitstream is measured 
in tens of milliseconds.


> ASIC will never beat this - because it will be 8x more expensive to
> maintain the cold circuits.
> 

Unused circuits don't consume power, which is the main cost in running a 
miner.