Makes sense. I would love if GPUs were back as the main hashing tool. However, we need to consider the environmental impact of mining, which currently consumes a quite exorbitant amount of energy. Any ideas on this front?
-- Garrett MacDonald +1 720 515 2248 g...@cognitive.ch GPG Key On Apr 10, 2017, 12:17 PM -0600, Erik Aronesty <e...@q32.com>, wrote: > I own some miners, but realistically their end of life is what, 6 months from > now if I'm lucky? If we used difficulty ramps on two selected POW's, then > the migration could be made smooth. I don't think changing the POW would be > very challenging. Personally, I would absolutely love to be back in the > business of buying GPU's instead of ASICs which are uniformly sketchy. Does > anyone *not* mine their own equipment before "shipping late" these days? > > Maybe sample a video game's GPU operations and try to develop a secure hash > whose optimal implementation uses them in a similar ratio? Ultimately, I > think it would very challenging to find a POW that doesn't make a bad problem > worse. I understand that's why you suggested SHA3. > > Hopefully, the "nanometer race" we have will work more smoothly once the > asicboost issue is resolved and competition can return to normal. But > "waiting things out" rarely seems to work in Bitcoin land. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:25 AM, g <g...@cognitive.ch> wrote: > > > Erik, > > > > > > I completely agree that it will be in the long term interest of bitcoin > > > to migrate, gradually, toward a commoditized POW away from the current > > > mass centralization. There is a big problem here though: Hundreds of > > > millions of dollars have been spent on the current algorithm, and will be > > > a huge loss if this is not done slowly enough, and the miners who control > > > the chain currently would likely never allow this change to happen. > > > > > > Do you have any ideas regarding how to mitigate the damage of such a > > > change for the invested parties? Or even how we can make the change > > > agreeable for them? > > > > > > Warm regards, > > > Garrett > > > > > > -- > > > Garrett MacDonald > > > +1 720 515 2248 > > > g...@cognitive.ch > > > GPG Key > > > > > > On Apr 9, 2017, 2:16 PM -0600, 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 >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
