1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1X3AFp-0001Ig-HQ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 04 Jul 2014 20:38:45 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1X3AFn-0006Zz-1T for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 04 Jul 2014 20:38:45 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:be5f:f4ff:febf:4f76])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0A1F10803A3;
Fri, 4 Jul 2014 20:39:21 +0000 (UTC)
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 20:38:30 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.15.0-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.12.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <10566815.3CllqoMfON@momentum> <53B6DB38.7010709@jerviss.org>
<CAC1+kJOSAoz_BBaFnv4u-Dng7Y4h2tqOHSFRfuKvY87eBR71Gw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC1+kJOSAoz_BBaFnv4u-Dng7Y4h2tqOHSFRfuKvY87eBR71Gw@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201407042038.30993.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1X3AFn-0006Zz-1T
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] ASIC-proof mining
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 20:38:45 -0000
On Friday, July 04, 2014 8:21:42 PM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:
> On 7/4/14, kjj <bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org> wrote:
> > I suspect that there exist no algorithms which cannot be done better in
> > an application-specific device than in a general purpose computer. And
> > if there is such a thing, then it must necessarily perform best on one
> > specific platform, making that platform the de facto application
> > specific device.
> >=20
> > I'm not sure how one would go about proving or disproving that, but it
> > seems very likely to be true.
>=20
> I assumed this was obvious and self-evident for anyone who knows what
> a Turing machine is, but judging from the number of smart people
> wasting their time on the pursue of the "anti-ASIC" myth (also known
> as pow wankery) it seems I was wrong.
> Anything you can do with software you can do with hardware and
> viceversa (you can even do it with ropes and fire in Minecraft!!)
> Does this really need any proof?
> I think it's the hard-pow cultists who have to provide a counterexample.
Really, if people want to pursue a goal anything like this, they should be=
=20
looking for "ASIC already widely owned" as the property rather than "anti-
ASIC". Thus, a sufficiently memory-hard PoW would really be "RAM is the ASI=
C".=20
Whether it's possible to make this or not, is another question. And then we=
=20
get back to "is is really a desirable property to have people capable of=20
mining who have not given any indication of interest?"
|
