Topic: If Core had to hard fork and use another mining algorithm, what would it be? - page 3. (Read 3467 times)

A vaunted algo was something called EquiHash (I think), as it's design is amongst the more difficult to produce an ASIC circuit for, and presumably it isn't too new or based on exotic math. But it will always be possible to produce an ASIC eventually, Scrypt was always touted as "ASIC resistant", until someone produced an ASIC unit with the requisite RAM modules to vastly outcompete PC/GPU Scrypt miners.

---

The key will clearly be to alternate hashing algorithms for PoW, either individually, or as a series of hash functions with the order of the series alternated randomly from a large set of hashing algos (Meni Rosenfeld's idea). And while that would decentralise mining a great deal, it would still mean those with access to the most resources would dominate mining (i.e. money, access to large premises with suitable MW rated electricity supply, cheap electricity, suitable environment for cooling, political favour etc).

But small miners would suddenly get back into the game even still; right now, mining ASIC manufacturers deliberately set the price of complete miner units at a level that guarantees their continued dominance in the actual block reward market (something like 5-8 times the market price of what electronics of a similar level of sophistication and material constituency typically would be). With that huge economic disadvantage removed, home miners can of course purchase regular CPU or GPU computing devices at the same prices as large organisations can. It would be good for Bitcoin, despite being somewhat disruptive at first.

Would still be good if someone could also trace the quote (if there's one), since I couldn't find it either. CB speculated above that if this algorithm change(s) were to happen, then it would usher in a real a gold rush (home users, typical Bitcoin users finally able to contribute to mining with a decent computer). That's definitely a situation I'd look forward to. Miners might feel this reduces profitability and hence the playing field, but the super miners can always move on to alts, right?

And certainly a lot of new mining algos I've now seen - eco-friendlier, asic-resistant, etc. While I doubt the snazzier ones like Proof-of-Time are technically solid, I do like some aspects of Proof-of-Importance... amount of work important, but so is quality. Amount of coins important, but less than usage, for example.

I believe the thread was hijacked by the Segwit2x vs. Core topic. They are still good to read though, but please answer my original question first.

IF Core decided that a Proof of Work change is needed, what kind of mining algorithm will they use in your opinion? Will they develop something new, or will they use something that is used now like Scrypt?

There is also a new white paper for another mining algorithm out there called Proof of Space. https://www.coindesk.com/proof-of-space-bittorrent-creator-publishes-eco-friendly-mining-paper/

Yes, that could be avoided, depending on how it's done. Don't worry, it's fairly simple to achieve.

 I would NOT forget about it.

 As soon as you change the algorithm, you have most or ALL of your miners suddenly not mining 'till they change the mining software.

 (edit) and if it's an ASIC-based algorithm like the SHA256 used on Bitcoin you have lost your hashrate and ability to process a significant number of transactions for a VERY LONG TIME since the miners CAN'T just "change their software".

No, the argument is still that a valid hardfork requires a super majority of all users of Bitcoin (meaning miners, businesses, and users), in fact, it requires consensus. A super majority of miners is not enough; miners do not and cannot dictate what Bitcoin is. You need a super majority of everyone involved in Bitcoin.

Could have sworn the argument used to be that it wouldn't be a valid hardfork unless there was a super-majority.  Now that it might happen, a super-majority is a bad thing because it suits you?  How the goalposts suddenly move as people get more and more desperate.  And then when you run out of arguments, just call everyone a shill.

And you still can't square the circle that it's supposedly only freedom when you personally agree with it.  Real freedom involves accepting that sometimes people won't agree with you and want to do their own thing instead.  Another reason why I'm more than satisfied with a change of algo if the hashpower plummets.  The developers have the freedom to do that and I have no intention to deny them that freedom.  I'm not in the habit of telling other people what they can or can't code.  I'll leave that to you, Napoleon.

Yeah, because super-majority miner activated hard-forks away from the proven development team, with zero technical justification == letting people choose


Done with you DooMAD, your shill account is burned

The minority chain would indeed be the altcoin, but that doesn't mean I won't be hodling it or following its development (despite the considerable downside of still having to share a chain with you).  And what possible bizarre-o through-the-looking-glass realm have I entered when the little fuhrer who thinks people are only free to choose when they agree with him gets on their high horse and tries to lecture me on "letting people choose"?  That's just too funny.   

Let's hear some more about how great permissionlessness is in one breath while lambasting alternative developers for not bowing down to Core in the next.  Hypocrite.   

Hmmm, yet before your opinion was wildly different. You claimed that the chain with most PoW will be, by your own personal decree, called Bitcoin, and any remaining fork of the blockchain would be an altcoin.

Maybe you should stick to your alleged principles, and actually let people choose. And hey, maybe you could offer a qualitative assessment of the choices, instead of painting yourself as some kind of unbiased observer, while actually doing a very subtle job of steering peoples opinions on psychological/subjective matters regarding cryptocurrency hard forks (sorry to inform you, it hasn't worked, no-one much is interested in the rather thinly disguised attempt to take the development reins that you've been tacitly supporting)

I mainly ridicule idiots who constantly babble on about hostile takeovers and power grabs, but thankfully you aren't doing that routine today.  If a majority of the hashpower does fork away, I have no qualms whatsoever with a change in mining algorithm.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  The hashrate has to come from somewhere, so CPU miners at home would be perfectly prudent and realistic. 

It seems there's a lot of people scared about segwit2x being a success because Coinbase, Xapo and BitPay are supporting it. I believe the weight of these businesses is widely overblown and its impact on bitcoin is simply overrated, but a lot of people get intimidated by these "big names" and their CEOs supporting the segwit2x scam.

I hope all of them get judged by history as they are forced to reject the segwit2x scam because nobody is running nodes (real nodes, not a bunch of nodes in a farm) supporting the scam software developed by CIA agent Jeff Garzik.

And I expect such a move would find very significant support in the Bitcoin community, it's simply not wise to trust the Seg2x developers when they are either unknown or, worse, known to be enthusiastically against the principles of permission-less sound money.

And then it would be true gold rush time, any new hashing algo chosen would be carefully vetted to be sure that the development time/cost for an ASIC would be maximised. A whole new generation of Bitcoin home miners would flourish

I expect DooMAD to ridicule this and make subtle points steering any readers in the direction of the Segwit2x fork, as usual, but let's remember that he's the only voice on the whole Bitcointalk board even faintly supporting Segwit2x. There's no proven case in favour of the move, and all other information suggests there are several reasons against the November hardfork.

Cue DooMAD, talking about how much he "favours choice", yet refuses to ever acknowledge the value proposition of the supposed choice that's actually being forced on the users (except when people are suggested to choose something that threatens the miner cartel, oh what a strange coincidence ), take it away son

I found it. It was not on Reddit after all. I was in an article written by Kyle Torpey. https://coinjournal.net/greg-maxwell-prospects-segwit2x-bitcoin-developers-may-leave-project-succeeds/

DooMad, I do not believe it was an off the cut comment because it looked like he was interviewed by Kyle Torpey. This is what he said about the possibility of a change in the Proof of Work algorithm.
It will depend on the Bitcoin community.

If it's proving difficult to locate on Reddit, is it possibly because it was on twitter instead?  I honestly can't tell if it was an off-the-cuff comment or if he's serious.  Also, it's not like he speaks for everyone in Core.  The general impression I get is that lukejr is towards the more radical end of the development scale, whereas others in core are a little more moderate and cautious in their approach, so it speaks volumes to me that it's his tweet and not one other the other devs.  If there were some likelihood of all the Core devs leaving the project in November, we would have seen some press articles about it by now, surely?

It could be implemented in way that wouldn't involve huge breaks in the hashrate, so I would forget about that angle

 Any coin that "regularly changed it's algo" would be cutting it's OWN throat - users are NOT going to tolerate the disruption of having their coins become UNAVAILABLE on a regular basis due to algo-forced wallet changes and NO MINER HASHRATE TO CONFIRM TRANSACTIONS during these changeovers.

Bitpay is not the only B2C payments processor in the market, nor have I heard it said that Bitpay will refuse to service transactions from the Bitcoin blockchain in the event that Segwit2x forks away from the Bitcoin blockchain.

But it's kind of an interesting aspect of this situation; if Bitpay refuse to take payments from the cryptocurrency with the biggest economy and/or monetary base (as is their present mission statement), then why not? Even if Segwit2x displaced Bitcoin in these metrics, it would still be a little strange.

Assuming BitPay isn't going to budge, even if a majority of users decide against Segwit2x as the canonical Bitcoin chain, do we have any alternatives? For most businesses BitPay is the only way to accept Bitcoin. Losing BitPay would mean we lose pretty much all of the mainstream market unless comparable alternatives are available.

It would be a shame that Core devs give up because of miners getting bribed by corporations, this should have been expected to happen sooner or later. Core devs must never give up, in the long term we will win.

Even if in the theoretical disaster scenario where segwit2x scam gets 90% of hashrate, Core should continue with whatever hashrate that is supporting them, because in the long term, the incompetence of the idiots running segwit2x would show up and then everyone would regret stopping supporting Core, and we would get our hashrate back and a lesson learned to never hardfork again. They can bribe hashrate but they can't bribe Core devs and real talent, in the end we will win.