Scrypt isn't harder than SHA, it just takes a lot more memory, making the performance difference between CPU and ASIC-implementations smaller. If the intent was to keep CPUs competitive it appears to have failed though, since GPUs are still a lot faster for it than CPUs.

I think you mean an FPGA, that is certainly possible and impossible to suppress too. But that would not be enough to stop an onslaught of government-monopoly ASICs if the algorithm strongly favours ASICs.

Casual and ASIC don't go together. Not even if governments don't interfere, let alone if they do.

Good point.

If I thought it would make a difference I'd be running a miner on my PC right now.

What I meant is that with a CPU-friendly algorithm, society as a whole has the means at its disposal to thwart a 51% attack. It doesn't mean that people would be mining for a profit. For similar reasons the Framers of the US Constitution didn't want standing armies and stipulated that the right to bear arms (i.e. militarily useful ones) should not be infringed.

No, people will continue to use general purpose CPUs precisely because they are general purpose devices that are mainly used for other purposes. This means there is a large pool of computing power outside government or corporate control that can be used to secure a block chain and prevent a 51% attack. ASICs could threaten that.

Slightly superior isn't a problem because many more computers are in private than in public hands. It might be good enough if ASICs weren't radically superior than GPUs, but it's better to be safe than sorry.

No, he is not. There are algorithms that were specifically designed not to be radically faster on dedicated hardware.

I believe his premise is true, but I'm worried about governments monopolising use of cryptocurrency ASICs by banning their private use and by buying large numbers themselves. I don't think it is possible to run a black ASIC production facility.

I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea for several P2P networks to share the purely network-related parts of their protocols and networks. That should give us both strength in numbers and synergy. For instance, some have speculated that Satoshi's initial goal was to provide a currency that could be used to provide a financial incentive for running Tor nodes.

It's not random. The term mining is misleading, it is really closer to auditing, but it's just that there's a built-in finite duration, ever-decreasing reward for this auditing activity. What miners do is to solve a specific mathematical problem that's directly derived from the block of transaction they've audited. It's a bit like trying to solve a 50 digit combination lock by brute force, but the number of digits you have get correct is adjusted automatically every two weeks or so in such a way that a miner discovers an acceptable combination roughly once every ten minutes.

Ripple doesn't strictly need gateways, as people can ripple payments through their network of trusted associates and settle with cash if necessary. Once it's out there and once it has been open sourced I don't think anyone will be able to stop it. Governments may succeed in pushing it underground, but they won't have the power to stop it. I look forward to politicians throwing tantrums when they find out they can't stop it. Only market forces could stop it, for instance if a superior competitor were to emerge.

Governments could certainly force exchanges in their jurisdiction to refuse to redeem IOUs held by specific individuals, but they couldn't stop those individuals from swapping them through exchanges in other jurisdictions or through anonymous private individuals. They could also forbid exchanges, but even if they do so, and all governments do this, they won't be able to suppress anonymous use by criminals who won't be scared off, and there will probably be some otherwise law-abiding individuals who won't be scared off either and who can settle privately in cash. Governments may be able to force Ripple underground, and retard its growth a bit, but they can't stop it. Only the market could do that, perhaps because some superior competitor were to emerge.

The idea is to establish trust relations for small amounts with friends, relatives, acquaintances and business partners, not with random strangers.

Ripple will be decentralised soon. And regardless you won't be supporting the USG.

I read the thread and didn't see any such announcements. I fully agree we shouldn't bloat the block chain, and that there may need to be separate layers, but what's the problem with a 60 byte max memo attached to a transaction, just as with bank transactions? Or even just a hash?

I'm ignoring him.

Is Bitcoin supposed to be only a currency, not a payment system?


You mean Ripple? I'm very enthusiastic about that, but I'd also like to see basic messaging functionality in Bitcoin clients, including the reference client.

I'm not saying the message should be in the deepest Bitcoin-specific layer or stored in the block chain. Nevertheless it would be useful to have standard functionality in the full protocol and in the reference client for specifying things like "A no. 5 with extra cheese and mushrooms".