The recently published paper I referenced cite's the Cuckoo cycle algorithm, discusses its limitations and explains how their proposed algorithm greatly improves on it. Again.... you're probably in a WAYYY better position to judge this than I am. My question was purely hypothetical as I wanted to know where the core devs stand on flipping the mining ecosystem upside down. Thanks for your link though, I'll read it right now (before finishing the research article i posted :) ). Daniele Daniele Pinna, Ph.D On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Adam Back wrote: > There are papers demonstrating this "protection from ASIC/FPGA > optimization" to be basically impossible > https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf and yet people > keep trying... > > See also John Tromps cuckoo cycle paper, seems close to the best you > could expect from memory hard. > > Adam > > On 2 October 2015 at 10:02, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > The following paper proposing an asymmetric memory-hard PoW had been > > recently published: > > > > http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/946.pdf > > > > My intent is not to promote the paper as I have not finished studying it > > myself. I am however interested in the dev-list's stance on potentially > > altering the bitcoin PoW protocol should an algorithm that guarantees > > protection from ASIC/FPGA optimization be found. > > > > I assume that, given the large amount of money invested by some miners > into > > their industrial farms this would represent a VERY contentious hard fork. > > > > It is, however, also true that a novel optimization-resistant algorithm > > could greatly ameliorate decentralization in the bitcoin network due to a > > resurgence of desktop/cellphone mining. > > > > Where do the core devs stand on this matter, hypothetical as it may be? > > > > Dpinna > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > >