Topic: Bitcoin devs discuss changing PoW to exclude ASICs (Read 1615 times)

Don't you this depends on the coin being a viable altcoin or the bitcoin for months / years?  How long did it take litecoin to do ASICs?  Three years?

Having bitcoin #2 viable economically enough to support ASICs might not be super realistic.  Or maybe it is when thermos declares bitcoin-classic as the alt for /r/bitcoin and bitcointalk while bitcoin-core plods on?

love your waffle that just says people are wrong.. so lets see you add some substance..

so, tell me lord, god and saviour

1. i say GPU solo mining on SHA3 is not a fixed permenant solution.. .. so..
in the uptopia that solo mining happens in 2017 and some magic prevents anything but solo mining for the next 100 years
why is sha3 a permanent solution that can never be multiplied. (multi GPU on one board) or multple motherboards in one persons house..
to corroborate your view that everyone will be on a level playing field..
please be specific as different GPU's have different specifications. and motherboards can hold more than one GPU. so explain how people will always be on a level playing field..
point one is just about GPU mining.. we can get to ASIC mining in the points below

2. i say it will just be short term.. because
satoshi in january 2009 thought CPU will rule the roost, but it wasnt until later in the year that some bright spark said 'how about GPU' which started the hash power race..
so what stops someone coming up with a solution thats not foreseen today to get around GPU mining, which makes FPGA or ASIC do the work more efficiently

3. i say people will pool their attempts.. because
there is many ways to do it. whats going to stop people..

4. i say people will make sha3 asics.. because if a computer gpu that is not designed to SHA3 can do it.. a chip dedicated to SHA3 can do it faster.


i would actually like a respectful and proper answer.. no waffles that just turn out to say "your wrong" without substance.. and no trying to bring up other off topic stuff to pretend you want to discuss something different to avoid answering these direct questions.

have a nice day, my master, my saviour

Right, so are you just saying anything you can dream up that attacks the idea of ditching SHA-2, because you've abandoned 2 arguments already. I can refute your latest change of position if you like, but you're trying to start about 5 different arguments in the above post, do you consider addressing your points to be a valuable use of time?

GPU solo mining on SHA3 is not a fixed permenant solution.. it will just be short term
people will pool their attempts
people will make sha3 asics..

meaning its just temporary before the hashing marathon begins again

and while the race heats up the power struggle and chances of 51%'s will happen again and again.

dont think for one second that everyone will be happily mining with just 1 GPU per user and the world is a permanent utopian dream of solo mining.. as it wont stay solo mining for long

No Franky, everyone will be using GPUs to mine, and so the playing field will be level. Absolute hashrate makes no difference in a world where the maximum possible rate has been brought down for everyone across the board.



It's no good getting all the details wrong the whole time and blaming it on my ego, the real problem appears to be that your own ego seems a little too fragile. I suggest you work on that also, because you're quite a likable character otherwise.



"And remember, if you get another attack of egotism, go straight back to the hospital immediately"

Just to make a point, I'll mention that I own a couple of gold coins over 100 years old. You know what?
They still work.

On the other hand, my bitcoind.0.8.6.1 not so much. And yes, I have another machine with 0.11 on it
just to prove I still have access to the network.

It's not just the bitcoin devs - other software that bitcoind depends on has security fixes and updates,
so the project is running across quicksand, to make an analogy.

I'd rather changes happened more slowly, and preferably via an altcoin, than via a process akin to
open warefare. YMMV.

firstly.. read the sha3 proposal.. it would knock the difficulty down to allow solo mining.. meaning difficulty would be low and new blocks made using with sha3 would be weaker..

i never said or insinuated that it would magically make sha2 prehashed blocks weak..
i do love how you bandcamp fanboys love to discredit people by misinterpreted and then meander what has been said..

again
SHA3 blocks, that are solved by GPU.. will be WEAK and a SECURITY RISK



the chinese can be racist against the rest of the world.. but i dont see china crying that the rest of the world is.. whatever shill propaganda story is the latest drama to cry about
you muddled, but nice diversion. here have a gold star * and to quash your trolling.. and bring the debate back on topic..i will (sarcasm) call you god, pray at your knee's devote my life to stroking your ego.. whatever it takes to make you stop discrediting people by trolling.. and to ask you this..

talking about SHA3, not me.. what are you personal thoughts of sha3. what motivates you towards wanting it or demotivates you from wanting it..
its all theory after all and wont happen so there no risk in just being hypothetically honest about your sha3 opinion about the impact it could make

The Big Red Button.  The nuclear option.

Core's Doomsday Weapon.


Tooministas must cease their aggressive brinksmanship, or the hard fork missile crisis may get ugly.

I sleep soundly at night, knowing Bitcoin is supremely well-protected from catastrophic consensus failure.   

It just shows how some devs are egocentric and bad behaving people, so giving them complete power to decide Bitcoin future is biggest mistake ever. Lets face it, monopoly hardly leads to customer satisfaction.

So, what happens to the accumulated difficulty invested in the blockchain by all the SHA-2 ASICs? That just disappears along with the hashrate that those ASICs conferred? Nope.

You're speaking as if only the present hashrate is protecting the chain at any given moment, whereas the cumulative hashing up to that point in time is what's really keeping the chain secure. All the previous heavy hashing is still there (and still will be if SHA-3 were implemented), still recorded in the blockchain.

So it would be effective. Think about it (although possibly think some more before you decide to post about it again).


So, using your bizarre logic, why is Bitcoin not a racist plot by the Chinese against the rest of the world? They're holding all the infrastructure cards, and they're acting as if they know it. So where's your identification of racism gone, Franky? Doesn't seem to make sense that way round, does it?

Labelling whole categories of people as having a single mindset is the mistake that actual racists make, and you're doing that in respect of those who say "let's go to SHA-3". Which is strange, seeing as you indicate that you simultaneously know that (racism) is not what's motivating the call to change. Makes you look a little muddled again, Franky.

risking bitcoin security (dropping difficulty), and giving the little people false hopes of billionaire lifestyles for the price of a gpu. and the pretense that it would hurt the chinese... all for.. 2 months.. just doesnt hold enough weight for it to actually be worth doing

basically its not effective or teaching a lesson..
think about it. china would love a reason to make a new product.. people wold have to rebuy from scratch all over again. they would love it..

oh and racism doesnt have to be about an all or nothing mindset.. some racists can just hate one culture, but can be ok or love many other cultures.. or vice versa, so some racists can be ok with icelanders, while hating on others..

Lol, what about people that are racist towards Icelanders? Is that not valid racism, or is your definition of racism, well, a bit racist?

I mean, I've got no qualms with people on the basis of ethnicity, and yet using SHA-3, as a way of reminding ASIC miners who's in charge, is a good idea. What kind of racist does that make me, lol

the only reason that people cry for SHA3, is mainly due to racism.. pure and simple, once you peel away the reasons and get to the root of it
and those that are crying loudest, hate that china make equipment for $200 and sell it for $2000 to everyone else .. (secretly making multiple rigs with the profits you hand them) and pricing everyone else out of making ROI

bt a change to the algo, wont put china out of business.. so it wont help the racism...

oh and by the way 30% of hashrate is now in iceland.. and its going to increase.. so relax, china is not worth being racist about

If asic gonna excluded , price will free fall 50 % if we are lucky.
Network will not be so powerful as it is now!
My fear ? That could brings us nightmare of hacking and bruteforce from all those free machines.

I have same opinion!
Asic machines now brings new life to bitcoin ,
they constantly improving stability of network and BTC price increase with difficulty jumping.

if wont bankrupt ASIC companies.. it will start a new wave of profits as noobs will think they finally get a chance to place the ASIC race second time around..
so give it 2 months to develop a ASIC with SHA3 and within 3 months the race is over and farms are back in power..

but thats all hypothetical as going to SHA3 wont benefit for any reason for long.. its just drama with no long term benefit

i think you did not grasp the part where it say that there is no asic proof, the new algo if profitable, it will bring again another asic competition in no time

and anyway the network weould be very small again with the same value as now? i dobut it, there is a reason why every altcoin out there are worthless

the value needs to be backed by something, in the case of bitcoin is done by a strong mining activity

You are missing the entire point.

Changing the PoW would be necessary to keep 1MB CoreCoin working in the event that a hashing majority decided to hardfork to 2MB blocks in Bitcoin. Each side would be calling the other an altcoin... and this change is the only way to keep the minority chain functioning and protected from attack by the ASIC hashing majority.

yes, it will never be like that. No miners will agree with this extreme changes. i
It will kill bitcoin. I cannot imagin the consequence.

yes sure, and you think that almost 1 exa of hash will be pro this change, it's basically asking them to lose all their future profit with this change, for nothing because asic can be built for every new algo

so it's even utterly pointless to do