Dave Scotese [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-10-02 📝 Original message:If the PoW function is ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-10-02
📝 Original message:If the PoW function is changed, it ought to change slowly so as not to drop
a brick wall in front of the miners speeding toward the ever-receding goal
of protecting the blockchain. Who's going to get on that path if the
bitcoin community does that?
But it can be done slowly. If most of the entries is the list of possible
PoW functions are double-SHA256, then the few that aren't will offer the
healthy goal sought by those who like the idea of changing it. The healthy
goal is for general computing machines to help protect the blockchain in an
incentivized way. There's a sick goal too, which is to destroy large
investments in mining. I hope no one has that goal.
At
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/35679/is-it-possible-to-make-pow-asic-resistant-through-dynamically-generated-hash-cha/40475#40475
I proposed that ongoing competitions for the creation of new hash
algorithms could feed an ASIC-resistant PoW, defined using the
as-yet-unknowable winners of such competitions. It is possible to make an
ASIC resistant algorithm, but it isn't a programmable algorithm - it's one
that requires human intervention. The hash of the next block is a good
example - there's no programmable algorithm that can find it because too
much human intervention is required, but it's an algorithm well-enough
defined for us to build a billion dollar system on top of it.
That being said, I've started looking at two different kinds of
decentralization. The literal actually-in-different-places kind is
categorically different than the much more important, virtual
impervious-to-coercion kind. The behavior of the "centralized" oil cartel
is a good example. The participants cheat. This is a fundamental
principle in the debate between free-marketeers and authoritarians
regarding the emergence of monopoly. Without coercion, monopolies fall
apart. There's nothing coercive about our use of the double-SHA256, so in
my mind, the centralization it has so far produced is not dangerous. It's
scary, sure, but until coercion is used to prevent me and my friends from
buying our own ASICs, it remains impervious to coercion.
Sorry for the long email that didn't make any apparent progress. The
thinking is what matters to me, and seeing two kinds of decentralization
and recognizing that a change in PoW can be slow enough to avoid hurting
existing miners are items I haven't seen anyone else recognize, so I had to
bring them up.
notplato
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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.)
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
techie?
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com>; and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net>; (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com>; which
now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>;.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151002/23af5503/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:If the PoW function is changed, it ought to change slowly so as not to drop
a brick wall in front of the miners speeding toward the ever-receding goal
of protecting the blockchain. Who's going to get on that path if the
bitcoin community does that?
But it can be done slowly. If most of the entries is the list of possible
PoW functions are double-SHA256, then the few that aren't will offer the
healthy goal sought by those who like the idea of changing it. The healthy
goal is for general computing machines to help protect the blockchain in an
incentivized way. There's a sick goal too, which is to destroy large
investments in mining. I hope no one has that goal.
At
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/35679/is-it-possible-to-make-pow-asic-resistant-through-dynamically-generated-hash-cha/40475#40475
I proposed that ongoing competitions for the creation of new hash
algorithms could feed an ASIC-resistant PoW, defined using the
as-yet-unknowable winners of such competitions. It is possible to make an
ASIC resistant algorithm, but it isn't a programmable algorithm - it's one
that requires human intervention. The hash of the next block is a good
example - there's no programmable algorithm that can find it because too
much human intervention is required, but it's an algorithm well-enough
defined for us to build a billion dollar system on top of it.
That being said, I've started looking at two different kinds of
decentralization. The literal actually-in-different-places kind is
categorically different than the much more important, virtual
impervious-to-coercion kind. The behavior of the "centralized" oil cartel
is a good example. The participants cheat. This is a fundamental
principle in the debate between free-marketeers and authoritarians
regarding the emergence of monopoly. Without coercion, monopolies fall
apart. There's nothing coercive about our use of the double-SHA256, so in
my mind, the centralization it has so far produced is not dangerous. It's
scary, sure, but until coercion is used to prevent me and my friends from
buying our own ASICs, it remains impervious to coercion.
Sorry for the long email that didn't make any apparent progress. The
thinking is what matters to me, and seeing two kinds of decentralization
and recognizing that a change in PoW can be slow enough to avoid hurting
existing miners are items I haven't seen anyone else recognize, so I had to
bring them up.
notplato
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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.)
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
techie?
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com>; and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net>; (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com>; which
now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>;.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151002/23af5503/attachment.html>;