Topic: If Core had to hard fork and use another mining algorithm, what would it be? (Read 3502 times)

Ok I 'll try it again:

There are two main powers that work against the centralization, which is a classical fix point problem where the attractor is given by the positive returns from mining profits - really, this equation has no varaible in the type of the algo, so you can chose ANY - all efforts to find a better one is net negative! Physics can save you lot of work here, but feel free to learn that hands on.

1. External forces, that destroy any (artificial) order in this universe, better known as entropy or dissipation at work/ fricktion. Here all operational risks fall in, like lump risk (to high centralization, compare big datacenters with no proper backup!), desaster risks ( fire, sonic shocks, war,...) and also regulative risks (China!), technical development risk (some better ASIC or quantum tech), here can be lot more other risks be named!

2. Nash Equilibrium / inner force: Since all bigger players are aware of the real need of a 'decent' decentralization, there is a pressure ( inside of each player) to NOT create a monopoly. Why?  -> Reputation risk! Once the other players notice the monoply, they will fold the game and leave!  We've seen this with a pool reaching 50% some years ago. Where is that? Gone!
I predict that china pools will never really collude, only for the reason to destroy bitcoin ( could be a short time event with potential revival) and go for bitcoin cash?

@Carlton Banks: I basically agree, that looks like a doable "roadmap" - only in the case it's necessary. Let's hope it's not, at least not already in November.

@hv:
While you are right that there will probably mining operators with large "farms" even if a "truly ASIC-resistant algorithm" is chosen, there are degrees of centralization. It is a difference if you _can_ try your luck with a PC at least in a low-electricity-cost country (or with solar/wind energy) or if you have to invest in hardware that only serves for one purpose. So I basically support the ASIC-resistant (or better: ASIC-unfriendly) approach if it's doable.

I think in English that is called "cluster risk", but maybe I'm wrong (I think you refer to the risk that too many miners/pools are in similar regions with similar risk profiles -> China, Iceland ...)

I however do not get your point with the Nash equilibrium ...

I just throw in sth very abstract but killing:


For the long run, it does not matter.


Since some legends stated way before me at other places but very true, all profitable mining tend to centralization, no matter what algo you might choose.

The only 2 things  will disrupt this centralization are the typical Klumpen-Risks (lump risk)  that these central guys are taking. We can see this very good in China right now. Who knows, how long they have this ideal env there with cheap energy, non-regulated, chips....?  Also Island is on risk due to tectonic activities.

The second but most important one is the NashEquilibrium, that will keep down the monopolists due to lost of user- confidence in this game.

Relax and keep watching or do better risk analysis.

As a miner, this thread is "interesting" to say the least......lol

How far we've come that the people who maintain the Blockchain are now labeled the enemy.

I just wonder how the hashrate would look like when we have a lottery of different hashing algorithms changing in random times (or isn't the time random and fixed?)

Anyway I would like to see some simulation models of that before we go with it. It's clear that sooner or later we may need to do something like this, but it's not clear to me how it would turn out.

I predict for every type of hashing algo someone would be specialized and would have a monopoly for that period of time. Wouldn't that be a problem? What if someone has 51%+ of hashrate for a particular algo?

Well it's very much the nuclear option. I wouldn't expect a change that significant to be rolled out without a substantial period of public dissemination testing, more plausibly:

• Code that disconnects BTC1 nodes on the basis of their fork-signalling bit (I believe that's already running on the Bitcoin network with versions >= 0.15.0)
• Short testing period of a hash algo that's difficult to develop an ASIC for, followed by immediate deployment
• Longer testing period of a the approach using a series of hashing algos + randomisation of constituents, series length and switching interval

The disruption and uncertainty of launching the series + randomisation approach as an essentially emergency measure would be too much even for the sophistication of the Bitcoin ecosystem. It would be difficult to achieve on the timescale currently presented, either sufficient design, testing and debugging or sufficient market contemplation or acceptance. There's a necessary amount of time to deploy the idea effectively, and so steps need to be taken to make that time available as a prerequisite.

But as an ASIC miner ejector seat, it would be rather effective on a more medium term timeframe

@Carlton Banks: OK, now we established a communication channel, I think . Your hopes for "randomly changing algos" are probably legitimate as it would be comparatively less profitable, compared to today, to use and develop ASICs. I am only a little bit skeptic, I think it should be tried if it's necessary, for now I think you convinced me that this would be better than Scrypt.


A little bit of speculation (still without scientific foundation):
- Investments in Bitcoin mining are investments in Bitcoin's ecosystem, like it would be investment in exchanges or other service providers. So miners should have an interest in that the cryptocurrencies for which their miners are built (SHA256) are strong and see increasing usage (and value). If there is danger for Bitcoin to massively lose users, they could use their financial power to "back" it or try to solve the problems investing in a solution (e.g. in developers if a bug is found). However, as there was never such a situation, we don't know it. Until now I saw very little of such activity  ...
- On the other hand, the same happens with all other investments in Bitcoin infrastructure. In that sense there is nothing special about the "mining industry", although they definitively add value that "backs" Bitcoin in some way.
- A dedicated mining industry means probably more professionalism and more specialized knowledge when it comes to the PoW "part" of Bitcoin's security model.
- One could speculate what would happen to transaction fees and questions like the "blocksize debate" if we begun to use an ASIC-resistant algorithm. If most (bigger) users were also miners (like in the beginning of Bitcoin's history) and "usage benefits" are equal or higher than "mining benefits" (e.g. most miners were also Bitcoin service providers or important users), then there could be a trend to declining transaction costs (fees), because the miners would "vote" for all improvements that decreased the cost for mining, running a full node, and transacting. For example, they could embrace sidechains (e.g. the Drivechain proposal) or extension blocks, but they would probably not vote for larger "mainchain" blocks because these would increase bandwidth, hardware and storage costs.

Personally, I don't know if we need this many miners right now anyway. They're here to chase the money, not support BTC. When BCH was more profitable, what did they do? They left BTC to go mine BCH. If they even think they deserve a seat in the scaling/developer debate, they are wrong. The only thing we need them for is to verify transactions and protect the network, which they themselves proved requires a lot less or them than we currently have at the moment. There is a huge glut of miners, most of them are dispensable.

With all the talk of "ASIC resistance" in the thread, here is a thought provoking question. Is the mining "industry" that was built around Bitcoin beneficial for its sustainability and longevity?

Like the crude oil industry, the whole world will not be able to drop it if it wanted to that easy because it is already embedded in the economy and has become a big part of society. Is Bitcoin going to be in the same position in the cryptocurrency world through the industries built around it?

I am most decidedly an outsider in these discussions, but I wanted to share my thoughts having read through this thread and some of the other discussions regarding this somewhat imminent issue.

I strongly believe that the Bitcoin Core team should do what it feels is best to advance its software.  Their track record speaks for itself, Bitcoin is the de facto standard in crypto for a reason -- sound decisions made by those in control of the code.  I think it's apparent that the user base has supported their vision for the currency as can be seen in the outcome of the recent BCC fork.

The idea to introduce added resilience to the standard by variable PoW algos is certainly a bold change.  From what I gather, part of the reason for doing so is because of a minority of actors, that represent a majority of the hash rate, being intent on forking over the 2x proposal.  It seems clear to me that they are only interested in their self-interest from a financial perspective.  While I can certainly understand that, I do not support decisions that solely take their own self-interest into account.  As a member of the Board of Directors of a few organizations, I often have had to make decisions that disadvantaged me from a personal/business perspective, but were the best decisions to make for the entity I was asked to make the decision for.  Not everyone can be selfless in this way, but it is part of the job when you accept a fiduciary duty to another organization.

I think if a change in algo is inevitable due to the circumstances, by all means make it as resilient as possible.  A programmatic approach to swapping algos, or a random use of multiple as is being discussed here, is a great idea in ensuring that a wider pool of users can practically participate in mining.  Of course, nothing is "ASIC-proof", but Carltons comments about the ASIC producers gouging prices for their own benefit is certainly the case if you look at the costs involved in producing the devices and the R&D resources, etc.  In some ways, the large concentration of mining power in so few hands, especially when those hands, in essence, control the means of production of the currency could be looked at as a form of "counterfeiting".  Not that their blocks aren't valid, but control over the most efficient means of production of the currency is a single point of failure/control over what is supposed to be a freer system.  The current system gives disproportionate control to a minority of entity.  As can be seen by this threat to fork the currency.

Whatever is decided should be done so transparently as possible and should be communicated to the user base as widely and as early as possible.  The impact of a decision of this magnitude has over the ecosystem is quite large.  From my perspective, it feels like it might be necessary to go this route.  If that is what the Core developers decide, its very important to communicate this clearly to users that are not as "tuned in" as others.  Without that, others will attempt to control the message and that will cause FUD.

For Bitcoin to remain the standard, it must sometimes make bold decisions that are in the best interest of long-term resilience.  I believe that this may be one of those times, and from reading what I've been able to about this issue, I am confident that the right things are being discussed and considered.

Thank you for putting those interests first.  I think it speaks volumes as to the integrity of your team.

Well, I see what you mean there.


But it's likely to be a rare occurance. Randomised changes to the set and randomised series size are very severe deterrents to ASIC development anyway.

Smoothing out the problems with different hashing ASICs working in series would not be difficult, all that's needed is a way to make systematic implementations difficult. You're starting with sinking money into development of every single hash algo that's chosen for the hash set, and a modularised design to chain them together for when the series changes. This really causes problems for large mining operations, as the need for storing unused hashers multiplies by the size of the hash set chosen for the series. And any design decisions taken to make a modularised interconnect for hashing units more difficult will surely be taken. And for every (randomly intervalled) change to the hashing series, the hashers need to be physically reseated, lest valuable space in the infrastructure situated mining centers gets wasted. All only until the random interval changes the series again.

That's a far more difficult development problem than a hashing ASIC, and a commensurately significant investment. And clearly difficult to operate at all efficiently. And your point kills the idea off altogether, ironically; why limit changes to just the hashing algos when you could make other changes that cause further problems with the design of modular interconnects. There's nothing to stop periodic updates to the scheme to force the specialists to innovate an even more difficult design.

Now for me it's the turn to *sigh* ...

What you're saying here is the concept we were talking about, yes - pre-defining a set of algorithms which then are randomly used as PoWs (with random intervals, if you want). If I remember right there are many altcoins already using something like that.

But I suggested, as an improvement, to sometimes change the whole set of algorithms to dis-incentive the development of ASICs for some of the algorithms used in the set, and "ban" algorithms where already ASICs are available.

That is what only can be done manually, with code changes and (probably) only with a hard fork. It's only a suggestion, maybe it's unfeasible because of the necessity to hard fork the chain every couple of years.

(I know you didn't mean that, but: There could be a way to implement even this kind of algo change without hard forks, making such changes be "part of the protocol", but miners then could simply introduce their own favoured algorithms and we have the same problem than now, so I would discard this solution from the start.)

No


A series of hash algos, the size of which is not fixed, is used for PoW.

The interval between the changes is random, whereby the constituents of the series, and it's size, are changed (within some sensible set of bounds).


A hard fork is needed to do all this anyway, so simply make the amorphous PoW definition a part of Bitcoin consensus. If PoW changes are part of the protocol, it's not a hard fork to follow the prototcol. You seem a little confused by the whole concept, frankly.

You seem to propose to have a large set of algorithms in which randomly sub-sets are elected, and from this sub-set every block the algorithm is chosen. What would be the advantage to simply elect one from the entire set in every block? Perhaps it could be more efficient? (Serious question.)

What I meant here is that every couple of years the set is updated manually by the developers, including newly developed algorithms, and "banning" algorithms where ASICs have been developed. That cannot be done automatized until we have a (un-gameable) super-AI that elects the new algorithms for us . Probably, however, that would mean more hard forks. The intervals between these hard forks could be randomised, but would that really make a difference?

Randomized algo changes seems like the way to go. I've seen this mentioned before and considered by reputable devs. If there is ever a bitcoin hardfork (a proper one, not one driven by scammers like Jeff Garzik) I would like to see that. It seems like the only way to avoid massive monopolies. One would need to invest so much money on research and stacking of every single algo to keep being the leader ever under several different algos, that i think it's unlikely the same player would always have the advantage.

And maybe the interval between the changing of the hash series could be randomised. Keep thinking though.

im still not understand, why bitcoin need separate the network? its just to make more money? just for creat new altcoin then the holder bitcoin will get extra money from forking chain?
for me bitcoin (pure bitcoin from nakamoto) is enough to handle current transaction

Okay, I thought about that solution too. As far as I understand the matter, the set of hashing algorithms would have to be large enough to make it unfeasible to produce ASICs for every single algorithm of that series. Such a "PoW concept" surely could work for some time, but I think even then it would be a matter of time until at least for some of the algorithms ASICs are developed, and some miners would set up specialized farms to mine only the blocks of the algorithm they have hardware for. That may be, however, less efficient for them (considering hardware manufacturing costs) than simply to use FPGAs.

Maybe the algorithms could be changed regularly to newer ones, that would dis-incentive ASIC development.

*sigh*


I think using a series of hashing algorithm that alternates randomly from a larger set is probably the way to go. There's no feasible ASIC for that, although I guess FPGA rigs could be introduced that could be re-programmable to the latest series size/combo might be feasible. Hard to see how that setup would be as flexible as just using a standard PC, but there are processing efficiency gains still. Maybe anyone doing that should pray that a random length of time for the hashing series switching interval isn't introduced too


So there is no manufacturers advantage, given that changes to the PoW hashing scheme are carefully thought through (in before some other smart mouth says "that sounds too complicated, confidence etc". If it's too complicated for you, go home, you came to the wrong place already)

I wasn't talking about new Scrypt miner manufacturers but about a new manufacturer of a new ASIC developed for a "fancy ASIC resistant algorithm". This player could ensure a competitive advantage for a long time, and if it accidentally happens to be Bitmain, we have won nothing.


I actually agree here - that would be a nice Utopian vision - but I think it is not realistic. It's a matter of time when the first ASIC will be produced, regardless of the algorithm, because the potential to get the first mover bonus is too high. And once that happens, then we have all the problems you see with Scrypt, but even worse because the first mover will have an extremely big advantage and could impose his agenda at will.

OK, one could do an analysis of the Scrypt miner market (I didn't do it, maybe I should ) and if the dominance of Bitmain in this sector is too strong or there is another mining hardware manufacturer with a near-monopolic position in that market, then that may be a point against Scrypt.

Actually, it would be ideal to choose an algorithm where there are already ASICs available but none of the current big hardware producers (Bitmain etc.) have a dominant position. I am, however, not sure if such an algorithm does exist.

I think my misinterpretation is snowballing.  I thought ChromaticStar meant they were worried that Core were overstepping their boundaries by proposing an algo change, but I understand now that it's not what was meant at all.  I was saying that users would be happy to support the change of algorithm if it came to it, not increase the blocksize.  That remains to be seen.

Well for starters, you are assuming a lot of things that "users" would want. Would users want a centralized network due big blocks? don't think so.

In any case, do users have big blocks already? Yes, they have BCash. Are users moving from BTC to BCash? Nope, no one uses that shit, even if the transactions are very cheap, it's not worth it because the developers are retards and all the smart people are working in Core, and when it comes to money, you want the smartest people to be developing the software that is the backbone for the network you are depositing your money at, not to mention BTC is now very cheap to transact with segwit and no Roger and Jihad spam. And if there's a way to test what users want, is to see if they want the big blocker fork and they do not, so stop assuming everyone using Coinbase or whatever are supporting the segwit2x scam when they don't even know about it.
Let's see if they like how the segwit2x scammers crash the market in November due causing yet another unnecessary fork as holders suffer from it.

Well for starters, Core don't have the "authority to rule BTC".  It's almost a given that users would be open to a change in algorithm if the alternative was having stuck transactions due to an overall hashrate too low for the current difficulty.  Users would therefore be happy to run the new code, so it's not a case of the Devs ruling over anything and the decision would be equally influenced by Devs and Users.  And the very notion of a change of algorithm wouldn't be on the table unless it was absolutely necessary.  Developers wouldn't be pushing it on an unwilling community just for the sake of it.

I think it's safe to say that the entire idea behind the change in algorithm is to deter ASICs and render them useless.  It's very much a 'nuclear option' and last resort.  But that's just indicative of how far things have escalated in this dispute.

//EDIT:  I realise I've probably misinterpreted that first part.  You meant the miners' supposed ability to rule over BTC.  But I'd argue equally with that stance too.  Miners, Users and Devs all generally have an equal share in the balance of power in that one can't accomplish much alone without the others.
//

If it were implemented early enough, it would indeed drive a firm wedge between the two chains and provide inherent replay protection, but it remains to be seen how quickly the change of algorithm would be activated.  I think everyone will want to tread carefully considering the magnitude of the change.

I get the feeling that if Core were to change the algo to stop the ASICs, that would pretty much kill their authority to rule BTC ever again. Who would ever invest in an ASIC miner with the threat of an algo change that can render it useless? I don't care if someone builds an ASIC miner, but it is the public/users that should have authority over BTC, not miners.

It is really hard to say how it will all turn out. Without replay protection, both chains are vulnerable. A number of miners will probably just mine the most profitable chain, but I hope Core has contingency plans built in to change the algo right away and we'll be back to GPU mining.

Would an algo change provide inherent replay protection?

The big question is if all that hashing power actually does support 2x, or if some of the pools are just waiting to see who blinks first.  Many here are still predicting a domino-effect where one big pool drops their support and then others swiftly follow.  Or, if it ends up like BCH did, where the miners were just pointing their hashpower at whichever chain happened to be more profitable at any given moment, the hashrate could be more evenly split.  In that situation, there may not be adequate surplus hashrate to maintain the 2x chain while simultaneously performing the 51% attack.  There are still quite a few permutations on how this could all play out. 

But yes, if a significant majority of hashrate really does turn out to be supporting 2x and the SegWit-Only chain is struggling to propagate, an algo change would indeed be a wise choice.



The other thing for everyone to bear in mind is that 'ASIC-resistance' will only ever be temporary if there is still sufficient incentive to mine the SegWit-Only chain.  There's no such thing as 'ASIC-proof'.  The reason Vertcoin's ASIC resistance is currently a safe bet is because Vertcoin isn't as big a draw as Bitcoin.  Let's be frank here, a sub-$40 million market cap and barely being in the top 100 coins simply doesn't attract the same level of hardware related research money.  So naturally there will be less funding towards developing dedicated chips for that Lyra algorithm.  Whichever algo the Core devs select will be thrust into the spotlight and the money will come flooding in to develop chips for that algo (again, providing there is still sufficient incentive to use the SegWit-Only chain).  Hence my thinking it might be in idea to use more than one algo, just to slow ASIC development as much as possible and keep the playing field level for a bit longer.

Yes, I've been think of moving into VERT for this very reason, but if core is going to switch to an ASIC-proof chain, then VERT effectively becomes obsolete.

Whatever it would be, it should be geared towards ASIC resistance and promoting a more even playing field between entities of different computing budgets. I'd wager a variant of bcrypt or scrypt would be it. I remember Vertcoin tried something of the sort. I think their variant was called Lyra.

I'm sort of under the assumption that a change in the algo must occur. With so much hashing power on the miner backed Segwit2x chain, it is in their interest to ensure that their chain survives. Therefore, they must 51% attack the Core chain to kill it. The only way the Core chain can survive is if they change to an ASIC proof algo, which Maxwell has stated he will support if he has to. Is this correct?

It's a bit of a financial gamble at this stage, as the change of algorithm isn't set in stone.  If there are any GPU-mineable altcoins you wouldn't mind accumulating as a fallback, then go for it.  But if you have your mind set on Bitcoin, wait until the change of algo is confirmed.  GPU miners don't really touch the sides as it were while the ASICs are still in play.

I don't have much technical experience and I've never mined before. From everything I've been reading on the technical forums, the 2x chain is not in any way "Bitcoin." At this point, with a fork almost inevitable, would it be worth it to buy a GPU miner, learn to use it and support the Core backed chain when the network splits in November?

Signalling is akin to people wearing hats on twitter and doesn't hold much weight. Miners ultimately follow profits and their signalling is often contradictory but this is the most recent tally -

Bitcoin Mining Pool 6 month hashrate share % for miners who agreed to NYA

34 1 Hash (China) 2.8%
35 BitClub Network (Hong Kong) 3.5%
36 Bitcoin.com (St. Kitts & Nevis) 2.3%
37 Bitfury (United States) 7.1%
38 Bitmain (China) (Antpool) 17.5%
39 btc.com (China) 10.7%
10 BTCC (Also a DGC Company) 7.8%
40 BTC.TOP (China) 10.7%
41 F2Pool (China) 9.5% Abandoned NYA

42 ViaBTC (China) 5.3%

Share of hashrate 67.7%



No. A PoW change is generally regarded as a worst case scenario and unlikely to happen . If segwit2x forks people like me and many others will simply split our coins and begin to dump our barrycoin alt on exchanges to rebuy back bitcoin. This should drive back most the hashrate . If ~15% of the hashrate doesn't return in a few weeks than users like myself might consider a PoW change HF.




Various plans have already been made , but it isn't wise to announce before necessary. The algo will likely memory hard , thus mined with GPUs. Candidates like Keccak SHA512 or cuckoo are example candidates

You don't get it, you're thinking in snapshots. The moment when some group of upstart ASIC producers make a Scrypt miner is not somehow frozen in time forever.

ASIC makers, irrelevant of their size when they begin their business, have an incentive to gouge their prices to bestow their own personal mining operations with an unassailable competitive advantage.

The actual solution is to choose a PoW hashing algorithm for which no-one has an ASIC design, thereby allowing regular users to use standard equipment to compete more effectively against warehouse scale mining operations. Algorithms that allow regular people to use standard, non-specialised equipment are the key to decentralising the hashrate.


(you should get a job doing propaganda for established Bitcoin mining ASIC producers, you accidentally say all the things they really want the public to believe)

In this case, I think it's the other way around ... if there is no algorithm-specific ASIC hardware available, then someone with big pockets and experience in the field (and who would be better prepared for that than Bitmain?) will develop it, as it's probably impossible to find a totally "ASIC-resistant" algorithm (like you said in a previous post).

They could use their first mover advantage to get a large portion of the network hashrate holding back a portion of the equipment for themselves, so they could dominate easily and even attack the chain.

That's why I think with an algorithm like Scrypt, where already ASICs exist, could be better suited, because there is already a market for specialized hardware, so it would become more difficult to get that first mover advantage.

51% attacks against the Bitcoin network are:

• Permissionless
• Also possible with 92% of the hashrate

And that's what this "fork" really is, using a cartelised hashrate to perform a 51% attack to steer the Bitcoin network away from the interests of the users. It's pretty obvious, as the fork provides no discernible upgrade to the network, includes uncompromising support from every questionable corporation in Bitcoin commerce, and features a political authoritarian as the chief developer.

If there was some kind of technical merit to Segwit2x, sure, we call it a fork. But seeing as it's a hashrate-led political move, it's a 51% attack.

"Let them fork"?  Oh, so they have your permission now, do they?    

I suppose that's about the best I can hope for, so I won't waste too much time pointing out that they were free to do that all along, with or without your blessing.  Also, I like the latest shift in emphasis that it's not about the economic majority anymore and it's only the informed 1% who matter.  Keep moving those goalposts, you insipid fascist.

But yes, they may well be making a mistake.  There may be no real demand for 2x.  The only thing that matters is you can't stop them from trying because that isn't your decision to make.

Uh, that would be a reason against using Scrypt. Mining cartels would still be pushing their agenda if there is ASIC hardware in existence, which for Scrypt, there is.

Caution, another Segwit2x shill coming in

But I am really interested in the original question. For me, the November fork will be far from a "triviality" if the current support for Segwit2x continues the way the block header messages indicate. I don't consider BitPay, Coinbase and Xapo at all "overrated" or so, it is even possible that they are the economic majority, on their own. So definitively it will be hard for "Original Bitcoin" to survive if 90% of the miners switch and the big companies switch, too.

I would like a long-term switch to something like Proof-of-Space, but I think there must be much more research about that topic to only be able to think about it (only 2 altcoins I know about - Spacecoin and Burst - are using it now, but I am not very convinced about their implementations). Proof-of-Importance mentioned by @buwaytress is basically Proof of Stake and thus I would only support it if the nothing-at-stake-problem is definitively solved or it is proven that the derived attacks are so impractical and expensive that they are more difficult to execute than 51%ing Bitcoin.

Anyway - I think the algorithm must be chosen so that Bitcoin cannot be easily attacked by the big mining cartels. Maybe Scrypt isn't the worst option for a "nuclear option" algorithm, because there is already hardware available and there is lots of experience in the altcoin world.

I'm aware that it's not just miners who make the decision and there has to be both support from non-mining nodes and economic support from users and third party services.  The real point is, if a fork happens, we'll get to find out for certain where that super-majority lies, rather than than putting the cart before the horse and just assuming based on your own personal preference about which chain each of you happen to like best.  It's largely speculation until we see the actual usage in real time.  You can't prevent the open market from doing its thing here in Cryptoland, and there's undeniably a gap in the market attempting to fill itself if these forks are occurring.  Assign the blame for that where you will, whether it's crying foul of "miner cartels", or "benevolent dictators" developing alternative clients, but there's no stopping it.  Plus, everyone can finally stop bitching about the miners having too much influence if they're going to head off and do their own thing.  People should be happy about all this, but I suspect no one actually will be because it's all about teh dramas^(sic)  

---

LOL NOPE.  No one group does.  That's the whole point.  No one dictates anything.  Everyone does what's best for their own selfish interests and consensus, together with the free market, sorts it all out.  Create the right alignment of incentives and everyone works together voluntarily, don't create the right alignment of incentives and people fork off.  

---

Technically, the developers don't even have to settle on a single algorithm.  It's possible to use more than one.  I'm pretty sure there's an altcoin out there utilising 6 at once.  This also apparently helps with ASIC resistance due to the extra math involved.  Certainly something to consider.  If the goal is ASIC resistance, maybe leave Scrypt well alone.

Full nodes dictate what bitcoin is. At the end of the day the rules are imposed by the software you are running, which is why government agents are trying to push hardfork-attacks that involve big block sizes, so only their corporations can impose said rules and not random people on their basements.

A miner could have massive amounts of hashrate and "prove a lot of work" which is useless if the people isn't accepting that hashrate as valid because they are using full nodes that ignore their blocks.

Similarly, just because you have a ton of machines that can make a huge hole in the middle of a desert and prove you did all of that work, nobody is going to value a stupid hole in the middle of a desert. So don't fall for this "we have all the hashrate so we rule" bullshit agenda that some are trying to push, including McAfee which made new friends Roger and Jihan Wu recently.



Can you fucking believe it?

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.

But that is only one business out of many businesses, even if they are large. Just because a few businesses, a few users, and a few miners support 2x does not mean that it has consensus and is going to happen.

Isn't BitPay still planning on supporting Segwit2x over Bitcoin Core? If so I wouldn't call the business support "little", as BitPay is currently one of the most important gateways to mainstream merchants. Or have they changed their stance?

This could turn into a cat & mouse situation, and so there could be regular PoW hash algo changes to combat the latest calls of "hey, we're upgrading Bitcoin for you with a super special network hard fork! So, we'll write the new super special software, and everything will be fine, just like before.... but better!!!"

It doesn't really matter though, any fork will demonstrate the true intentions behind it once it's been enacted, sooner or later. Understanding the programming or the cryptography won't be necessary, the effect to end-users on their abilities to use (and their money's subsequent unit market value) will make it obvious whether the fork was intended to provide value to the users or those who chose to do the fork.

I posted IF 90% of the miners will still follow through with Segwit2x on November. I did not say it will happen for sure.



Core will move onto "other projects" only if a large majority of the users support Segwit2x, together with the miners. But if 90% of the miners will still push for Segwit2x, and the users still want the original chain, then it will make sense to change the Proof of Work algorithm, according to Greg Maxwell.

I tried searching for the Reddit post but it is hard to find.

If core gets 10% hash rate and SegWit2x gets 90%  Core said they would "move onto other projects".

No, that is incorrect. Segwit requires a soft fork to activate, and in fact, has already activated. What you are thinking of is the Lightning Network or sidechains.

Segwit2x is a (improperly named) proposal to make an additional hard fork to a maximum of 8 million block weight (double that of segwit's 4 million block weight). It currently has very little user and business support and supposedly a majority of miner support. However it is not clear how much of the miner support actually supports segwit2x now and will support it in the future if the vast majority of users and businesses don't support segwit2x.

 FUD, and particularly stupid FUD at that.

 Bitcoin is not going to switch algo, Segwit is a protocol that runs ON TOP OF the Bitcoin blockchain and does not affect Bitcoin mining AT ALL.

 There may be a fork to impliment SegWit (I'm pretty sure they have to do that) but it's only going to affect the WALLETS not the underlying mining algorithm.

I read a comment on Reddit that if 90% of the miners will still follow Segwit2x on November then Core will have no choice but to fork off and upgrade to a new mining algorithm. I do not know if it has been discussed before, but what are the proposals made for the new kind of mining algorithm? Will it be something new or will it copy what is already out there?