yes please. And Luke Jr., please stop spamming with your baseless stupidity about the algorithm change. It makes no sense to change the algorithm and it would only serve one thing - destruction of bitcoin.
Exactly. Changing the algorithm would only benefit the few big money players, who can build a new ASIC chip fast, and hijack the market. That would be the single most stupidest thing that Bitcoin can do it for it self, destroy all the existing ASIC diversity.
ASIC is the end-of-the-line, and we need as much players to that field as one can get in order to secure Bitcoin's future. There is even a OpenAsic project, why people who are concerned of concentrating of power doesn't support that? Give some BTC love for it, and all is solved? But noo, they will shoot them selves in the leg, because they hate that their GPUs are becoming obsolete. Or they are so stupid that they would agree to hand Bitcoin over on a silver platter to a few rich players.
Support OpenAsic, or start your own (to only mine with them, for all I care). We need all the hashrate we can get, in many hands that's possible.
Well, as I have said above (and elsewhere) there is reason why the algorithm could need changing.
Firstly, if the sha256 was broken.
i.e. if someone works out how to factor the hashing process enough to solve blocks rather than hashing (currently) on average 1.05x10^16 double sha256's to find a block.
If that happens, then of course sha256 much be changed - of that there is no doubt.
Though, I have already give a reason why the current hashing process needs to change (not the sha256 algorithm) here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/handle-much-larger-mhs-rigs-simply-increase-the-nonce-size-89278However, I've no idea if that would affect the ASIC implementations, coz it would depend on if they have optimised the double sha256 (that give an extra 6.25% performance) as has been done with GPU hashing, or not.
