Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-10-02 📝 Original message:On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-10-02
📝 Original message:On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at 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.)
📝 Original message:On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at 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.)