Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Using a storage engine without UTXO-index

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 04/08/2017 04:58 PM, Tomas wrote: > You seem to ignore here the difference between base load and peak > load. If Compact blocks/XThin with further optimizations can > presync nearly 100% of the transactions, and nodes can do as much > as

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > 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"

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

On 9 Apr 2017 4:01 pm, "Jimmy Song" wrote: Jorge, Why won't the attacker use asicboost too? (Please don't say because of > patents) > > We're assuming the ASIC optimization in my example is incompatible with ASICBoost. But if the new optimization were compatible with