Bitcoin Forum
October 15, 2019, 05:18:30 PM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »
1  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ethereum Anti-ASIC fork, is it the right time for bitcoin too? on: March 30, 2019, 08:21:34 AM
It appears very unlikely that "asic resistance" is even possible, but putting that aside: there is also little evidence that it would be desirable.  Absolutely asic mining has created a multitude of problems but something having problems doesn't suggest that any particular alternative is better... the alternatives to common practices with known issues are often much worse.

today I have received this link about the cost of Progpow and ASIC design and could give us more useful ideas for further discuss:

https://medium.com/@ifdefelse/the-cost-of-asic-design-a44f9a065b72

"Introduction

The speculation about hardware design and development costs as it pertains to both ProgPoW and Ethash are usually followed by a statement of authority: trust the author, because they have previous experience in <field>. Sometimes, it is cryptocurrency-ASIC production, other times, it is integrated-circuit design.

For the audience who is more familiar with code rather than fan-out and rise-times, a level of perspective on why this statement of authority does not apply to ProgPoW may be helpful."
2  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: The necessity of "flash-back-pinning" in structure of transactions.. on: March 15, 2019, 10:42:07 PM
- It's hard to determine distance of blocks which is safe enough or last known "safe" block (at least without visit cryptocurrency news, forum or community)

My best candidate / suggestion for this concern is EXCHANGE CENTERS..


- Determining "safe" distance of blocks automatically by wallet is extremely important, otherwise only users who check news or/and some technical knowledge who can enjoy the benefit
- It's not really useful for user with SPV wallet/nodes who never check news due to  SPV wallet/node vulnerability
- Assuming intentional hard-fork happen and forked coin "created" (which don't have replay protection) very recently, transaction is still vulnerable to replay attack since wallet might choose hash before hard-fork
- Unless you use SegWit script versioning, hard-fork is needed. But if you use SegWit script versioning, only user with upgraded client would enjoy the benefit
- Flash_back_block isn't needed since i doubt there are 2 or more block with same hash. Even if Flash_back_block only contain 12 char of hash from right side, there are 2.814749767x1014 combination. There's  no problem with searching hash with it's block height as bitcoin client already use block indexing
- For intentional hard-fork, forked coins could use sighash as replay protection which save user time

OK
just added your comments to the documents of PoCo.. thank you.
3  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is not enough: we need open source hardware on: March 15, 2019, 10:33:55 PM
When you say that your private key is in your hands, you mean that it is stored in a device you trust.
Or if it is on paper,  you assume that when you will import/use the PK on a device to make a payment/transfer, you trust that device.

you just post a real concern in this topic.. and this is what I have done in PoCo Project [1], a hardware wallet that will be fully open source.. even the PCB, bill of material and drawing of the box will be available for everyone:

http://mixoftix.net/knowledge_base/blockchain/poco_wallet_prototype.jpg

an important note regarding to the PoCo Wallet is that, I try to provide a very different method for signing and save the private security value in this specific project, and this simply lets me to work with a very small (and cheap) AVR micro-controller, and I am not sure if the same AVR could do heavy process of bitcoin security model too (however there are sort of projects online that could handle asymmetric encryption by an AVR). anyways, simple micro-controllers better suit your real concerns about the necessity of an open source hardware project..

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5066624.0
4  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ethereum Anti-ASIC fork, is it the right time for bitcoin too? on: February 07, 2019, 09:09:33 AM
What? I believe that Moore's Law's "death" doesn't have anything to do with Proof of Work. I might have misunderstood, because if ASICs or GPUs have reached the most density, and efficiency for the most processing power it can make, how does it kill POW? Mining will not stop.

Mining never stops, but centralization happens.


In your theory.

Quote

the Moore's Law means: "the number of transistors on a chip doubles every year while the costs are halved."
now the death of Moore's Law means: "the number of transistors on a chip reaches the saturation point."

so at the saturation point, while people like miners only could have access to chips and regular processors, Quantum or Optic,... computer manufacturers (that do not follow the Moore's Law) could totally defeat them in a processing (and therefore mining) race and become the majority. even an ASIC manufacturer could utilize his new devices in a mining competition and after a complete ROI for his R&D costs, now send them to the market for sale. this means regular miners are always one step back. before ASICs involvement in mining process, a fairness existed over all miner entities. this fairness is important for the existence of hobby miners that constantly support their coins in good and bad days, not industrial miners that turn off their facilities with the first drop of price.


Quote

please see the future..


Another theory would be, Moore's law's saturation point might make Bitcoin mining's competitiveness become more moderate, and more economical, causing hashing power to be more distributed.

wrong analysis..

the first ASIC emerged in bitcoin in 2011 [1][2] but ASICs widely got used in 2014 [3] and your first graph shows how harmful are ASICs. your graph of 2019 is decentralized because of crash in market and price level of bitcoin, so industrial mining farms shut down their facilities. the next increment in price level changes the distribution of process again.. ASICs role as Sword of Damocles.


[1] https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/02/02/a-brief-history-of-bitcoin-mining-hardware/
[2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List_of_Bitcoin_mining_ASICs
[3] http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-electricity-consumption/
5  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Printable one-time coupons (to be used as "cash") on: February 07, 2019, 08:43:15 AM
- call it check (cheque in British) instead of coupons or cash
Might make sense, although there is not really a "bank" as a middleman.

Quote
- consider the principles of direct debit [1] and forget any kinds of fast processing
Here I don't understand what you mean - a direct debit authorization generally is valid for a single merchant, and thus that would be relatively trivial to solve as the destination address can be known beforehand (as written in the OP). Can you elaborate?

of course we replace bank with blockchain here..

in fact a payment with crypto matches the "remittance money flow" in classic payment models which payer A "initiates" the flow by submitting the transfer order to bank A and bank A relays the order to bank B that sends an indication message to recipient B (in blockchain version, payer A submits her raw transaction to a node and after insertion into a block, the amount of confirmation that recipient B observes enrolls as indication message from bank B). and this model obviously causes DELAY in check-out step.

now look at the money flow in check-or-credit-like payment model. in these cases, the payer A submits her payment directly to recipient B. then recipient B sends the payment capture to bank B. then bank B invite bank A in a "settlement" process. this is why I basically suggest you follow the check-or-credit-like payment model, because I think payer A could submit her raw transaction to recipient B and let him to submit it to a node and let adding the transaction to the blockchain happen in a settlement like process. in this model you need to know your customer very well.

but the "debit order" model is totally a new field for research to fit in crypto world. in this model the recipient B is the initiator of payment and submits his debit order to bank B and bank A transfer in continue, but also sends an indication to payer A and listen to any protest from payer A. in a post that entitled "Dead man's switch" we had good comments/codes about reversible transactions in bitcoin:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5069728.0
6  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Quantum Computing and Bitcoin on: January 25, 2019, 09:36:24 AM
Just wondering why somebody having QC will like to attack bitcoin, when there is so much Fiat lying in banks ?
Don't you think that fiat in bank will be the first target before they will think of brute forcing bitcoin wallets.

as ETFBitcon mentioned above, the Banking system is centralized and roll-backing transactions are very legitimate procedures that could take place based on identified circumstances. imagine a credit card owner that gets hurt by a QC, then its owner could call her bank and report the problem and ask for roll-back.
AND centralized systems:

1. could simply equip by 2-factor authentication flows
2. do not let their routines be available for brute-forcing

we all know that an internet banking system only allows e.g. 3 or 5 unsuccessful try for login routine, otherwise they block a user account. such routines couldn't exist in decentralized architectures. attacking the HTTPS protocol will be trivial too, because the 2-factor auths that utilize advanced OTP generators could prevent any kinds of MITM attacks.

Electronic signature is the back bone of e-commerce and it would collapse totally once ECDSA becomes vulnerable to QC or any other technology and centralization won't help ever.


totally true, BUT a centralized system like banking system could simply publish an announcement about abandoning e-signs (for a while) and ask its customers for get back to the traditional paper-based methods. I mean they that several alternatives, but a crypto only could survive in virtual world.
7  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Printable one-time coupons (to be used as "cash") on: January 25, 2019, 09:30:05 AM
Two ideas came up in a discussion about this topic in the German forum:
1) You create a fresh key-pair and then a transaction from your wallet to the resultant address, but do not broadcast it. You print the whole transaction and the private key of the receiving address to paper and pay with that "coupon". The store can check that transaction and private key are OK - he broadcasts the transaction and immediately transfers the amount to a wallet he owns.

2) You create a transaction from your wallet with an output that can be spent by an user knowing a secret S, providing the corresponding hash H(S). As in example 1, you don't broadcast the transaction but print it on paper, including the secret S. When you pay at a store, the recipient can check that the transaction is OK and the secret is correct, and transfer the coins to a wallet he owns.

I could suggest 2 characteristics for such printable things:

- call it check (cheque in British) instead of coupons or cash
- consider the principles of direct debit [1] and forget any kinds of fast processing

and for having an advanced approach to the solution:

- include principles of zero-knowledge proof to the process [2]


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_debit
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
8  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Quantum Computing and Bitcoin on: January 25, 2019, 09:10:45 AM
Just wondering why somebody having QC will like to attack bitcoin, when there is so much Fiat lying in banks ?
Don't you think that fiat in bank will be the first target before they will think of brute forcing bitcoin wallets.

as ETFBitcon mentioned above, the Banking system is centralized and roll-backing transactions are very legitimate procedures that could take place based on identified circumstances. imagine a credit card owner that gets hurt by a QC, then its owner could call her bank and report the problem and ask for roll-back.
AND centralized systems:

1. could simply equip by 2-factor authentication flows
2. do not let their routines be available for brute-forcing

we all know that an internet banking system only allows e.g. 3 or 5 unsuccessful try for login routine, otherwise they block a user account. such routines couldn't implement in decentralized architectures. attacking the HTTPS protocol will be trivial too, because the 2-factor auths that utilize advanced OTP generators could prevent any kinds of MITM attacks.
9  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ethereum Anti-ASIC fork, is it the right time for bitcoin too? on: January 25, 2019, 08:56:16 AM
I'm looking forward to see a working PoC.

then may I have your (and other skilled contributors) opinion and reply with the idea of flash-back-pinning:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5089384.0

I think such improvement could lead us to another stage of co-existing with ASICs and mitigate the threat.
10  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ethereum Anti-ASIC fork, is it the right time for bitcoin too? on: January 24, 2019, 06:32:20 AM
Quote

We need to discuss everything in details with prominent Core figures and have their support


I was thinking about this.

Why do you need the Core developers' permission? The beauty of cryptocurrencies is it's open and permissionless. You have your right to freely make your own thing and release your own software.

the act of discussing more something is about picking options more wisely.. and when a thread asks for more prominent people's opinion about something critical like BLOCKING-ASICS, this could observe the TRUST of people, more and more. and being permission-less doesn't mean you can begin coding and after 6 months of hard working, you suddenly understand that it was all about wasting of time.

so this is about modeling before implementation [1] that we rarely see in crypto-world. after having an idea we somehow used to jump in implementation and don't care about modeling. sometimes I ask myself, why don't we have a DFD [2] approach within BIP steps!? introducing a distributed modeling language may be the next improvement in decentralization efforts.

(Linus Torvalds did not need to ask permssion to develop and release his own version of a unix-like OS did he. Cool

but in crypto-world, a coin carries a certain amount of value not a process. you can manipulate a process so you innovate, but what would we call it if we manipulate a value?

---------------------------------------

reading the history of Nokia could be useful for the future of Bitcoin. a shift in technology and user experience out of sights of Nokia simply lead them to bankruptcy. Nokia CEO ended his speech saying this "we didn't do anything wrong, but somehow, we lost" [3] and this thread is going to discuss it, if such a thing is going to happen for Bitcoin too, how we could prevent it.


[1] http://agilemodeling.com/essays/modelingApproaches.htm
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_flow_diagram
[3] http://fun.putidea.info/2016/06/nidokidos-nokia-ceo-cries-during-his.html

Quote
Conclusion from http://fun.putidea.info/2016/06/nidokidos-nokia-ceo-cries-during-his.html:

The advantage you have yesterday, will be replaced by the trends of tomorrow. You don't have to do anything wrong, as long as your competitors catch the wave and do it RIGHT, you can lose out and fail.To change and improve yourself is giving yourself a second chance. To be forced by others to change, is like being discarded. Those who refuse to learn & improve, will definitely one day become redundant & not relevant to the industry. They will learn the lesson in a hard & expensive way
11  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Proof of Accumulated Stakes: A Stake-Based Blockchain Voting Consensus Protocol on: January 19, 2019, 11:47:23 AM
Anyone can provide many confirms to those signals, but he can't fake the fastest confirm to most of them, because the network latency and the physical distance between nodes.

What is the cost of a VPS? If you wanted to dominate voting by having the fastest ping times, wouldn't that be trivially achievable by renting VPSs?

good point. Renting a VPS with several IPs could be harmful.

--------------

I also like to ask another question from our friend: "excluding the ping/latency property of this idea, what are differences with this proof model (PoAS) and Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) [1]?"


[1] https://blockonomi.com/delegated-proof-of-stake/
12  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ethereum Anti-ASIC fork, is it the right time for bitcoin too? on: January 19, 2019, 10:13:42 AM
So, instead of just speculating about the so-called upcoming pump times, why not discuss about how more and more adoption can take place in crypto world as well as how super real use cases can be built to show these people that Bitcoin is not just limited to price fluctuations and trading alone, it has its own space to be explored.

I like this spirit.. just I am not sure how we could have a laboratory to have quicker transitions of ideas to running codes.. for example, having a fork and call it "bitcoin lab" as a real coin in market that changes itself quicker than usual may be another option for bitcoin community.

UPDATE:
what I really care about is the fact that ideas can't wait too much to be effective. all ideas that can bring an improvement have their own expire dates, and after that they will be useless, which means, such slow approach to upgrade just kills the active entities of any societies.
13  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ethereum Anti-ASIC fork, is it the right time for bitcoin too? on: January 17, 2019, 09:42:57 AM
(considering that everyone is looking for "regulations" to take effect as they believe that putting everything in the hands of "Central Authorities" will get their Bitcoins' value to sky high levels, which is somehow true as well).

this regulation part is very important here and actually talking about an upgrade to an ANTI-ASIC algorithm is a kind of regulation_by_code.. which means being code_central wouldn't be a kind of centralization that everyone tries to stay far from it..

UPDATE: one good example of regulation_by_code that already exists in PoW is the procedure of difficulty setting among block creation..

they can easily buy the pre-mined coins either in ICO

with PoS please use the term pre-defined instead of pre-mined coins.
14  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Quantum Computing and Bitcoin on: January 16, 2019, 10:26:16 AM
IBM just released a new quantum computer, but it will still take a few years before applications can use its full potential.

See press release here: https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/08/ibm-q-system-one-quantum-computer/

its 20 qubit

//Andre

this would be a good practice to imagine a GRID of these 20 qubits is online out there and passing the calibration phase the begin mining..  Grin Grin
15  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ethereum Anti-ASIC fork, is it the right time for bitcoin too? on: January 16, 2019, 10:17:21 AM
What? I believe that Moore's Law's "death" doesn't have anything to do with Proof of Work. I might have misunderstood, because if ASICs or GPUs have reached the most density, and efficiency for the most processing power it can make, how does it kill POW? Mining will not stop.

Mining never stops, but centralization happens.

the Moore's Law means: "the number of transistors on a chip doubles every year while the costs are halved."
now the death of Moore's Law means: "the number of transistors on a chip reaches the saturation point."

so at the saturation point, while people like miners only could have access to chips and regular processors, Quantum or Optic,... computer manufacturers (that do not follow the Moore's Law) could totally defeat them in a processing (and therefore mining) race and become the majority. even an ASIC manufacturer could utilize his new devices in a mining competition and after a complete ROI for his R&D costs, now send them to the market for sale. this means regular miners are always one step back. before ASICs involvement in mining process, a fairness existed over all miner entities. this fairness is important for the existence of hobby miners that constantly support their coins in good and bad days, not industrial miners that turn off their facilities with the first drop of price.

please see the future..

Quote from: AGD
Just have look what is happening when the BTC/USD price goes down below a positive ROI:
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2019/01/15/unknown-bitcoin-miners-cryptocurrency/

there is also another observation that shows while ASIC-friendly coin's hash rates get hurt by a decrease in prices (a downgrade from 60 to 30 TH/s - something around 50% of bitcoin processing power), ANTI-ASIC coin's hash rate like Monero remained untouched. this shows the absence of miners who equip themselves by higher performance devices (because of the bigger tolerance that they can provide), could jeopardize the whole network. your link was the most scary report that I have seen these days that shows how misbehaving of ETC ASIC miners could extend to BTC miners too. emerging of unknown miners with 23% of processing power is a threat.

16  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ethereum Anti-ASIC fork, is it the right time for bitcoin too? on: January 15, 2019, 08:27:54 AM
There is no need to complicate things as you are trying to do obv. Let's short it all up to one word: Greed

the word "Greed" is just part of the problem and ends with something like ETC, my friend. please give us a solution with one word..
17  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ethereum Anti-ASIC fork, is it the right time for bitcoin too? on: January 15, 2019, 07:58:07 AM
Call me paranoid, but if there's going to be any talk of a new algorithm or consensus mechanism, I'd personally rather see something battle-hardened and not some new and experimental idea fresh from the drawing board.  Kudos for your efforts and all, I certainly don't mean to diminish your work in any way, but the security of the Bitcoin network is hugely important.  Obviously I can't speak for everyone but, for me at least, security easily takes precedence over some vague idealism about how ASICs are considered by some to be a problem.

of course you are not paranoid. I personally support both approaches: 1- upgraded 2- brand new work flows, with different forks. each technology could best serve us in specific duration of their life cycle and R&D entities should provide better solutions anytime.

Your car/camera analogy makes absolutely no sense.
You need to understand, that people who are able to make money simply by running a computer, will always try to optimize their ROI. Means, that coders always will optimize mining code and their hardware (i.e. CPU-->GPU-->FGPA-->ASIC-->Asicboost...) to raise their ROI. Bitcoin has raised enough attention, that even computer hardware companies jumped on the crypto train (the good old gold rush/shovel supplier analogy).
There are yet ASIC resistant coins out there, but if their value raises enough to make it worth to develop an ASIC, it will be done.

with this method you can't even explain why coins with PoS consensus model still exist and grow in the market. in the field of PoW, we could see how Monero constantly blocks ASICs and its price remains unchanged. We could also see how Electroneaum followed Monero and blocked ASICs, but after drop in market got back to ASIC-Friendly algorithm again and this time their price in market dropped even more. We could see how market responses to Ethereaum these days. in all these examples I could see ASICs are somehow out of equation of pricing - except the recent 51% attack on ETC that ASICs were actively involved and the whole market has taken effect from.

when price of a coin is high enough to reward ASIC miners, they mine properly, but when they do not benefit from regular mining, they decide to become the majority and attack the network and this time benefit based on double-spending and then extortion. this is another way to OPTIMIZE mining:

Quote
the inversion of incentives for miners of ETC:

block interval= 10 second
block reward= 4 ETC (20$)
blocks (last 24h)= 6,108

block reward (last 24h) = 24,432+24.45+34.13+34.13 ETC ($105,506.96 USD)
stolen amount (less than 24h) = $1.1 million worth of the currency

now to fill the gap of block rewards and stolen amount ($1 million), ETC is rewarding (/ higher fee amount) each block with something around 200 coins [1] per block!! I call this hostage situation as extortion-after-51%-attack. this is not security.

[1] https://www.trustnodes.com/2019/01/13/etc-block-rewards-go-crazy


UPDATE:

please read this carefully. the problem with ASICs is they can't go anywhere else to mine. once they can not gain enough benefit, they decide to attack for ROI. but if we only get GPUs in the ecosystem, they could simply switch to other coins for more benefit. this changes the way miners proceed for optimize mining.
18  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ethereum Anti-ASIC fork, is it the right time for bitcoin too? on: January 14, 2019, 10:37:03 PM
If you want to try to build a new coin using the 'honour system', where you trust participants to agree not to use the most efficient means of mining it, then by all means go for it, but in my view that's weak and I won't support it in Bitcoin.

You know, I am working on a new consensus model "PoCo" that works with PoW in its first layer but is also neutral against processing power. What we are doing here in this post is about sharing our latest knowledge and forecasts about the future of crypto and bitcoin, then everybody could make the best decision that better suits them. nothing weird is going to happen.

Say what you like about ASICs, but any manufacturer can make them for SHA256, so no one company can gain a major advantage now.  You would also likely bring more financial harm upon Bitmain's competitors than you would Bitmain if you pressed the reset button and undid all their research and development before they can achieve return on investment.

Bitmain company is not my problem. ASICs (or any other processing devices that can do nothing but calculate one thing in one way) are my problem.

It's not remotely the simple change you describe.  There are real and tangible consequences.

True. I prefer to read more about these consequences. as I said above, these all are about sharing forecast to better understand the upcoming trends in crypto-world.

Perhaps we need to stop anthropomorphising hardware here.  We're talking about machines designed and built for a purpose because there is a financial incentive to do so.  Nothing more, nothing less.  These overly emotive pleas to define them as "parasites" are not productive avenues of discussion.

these analogies are necessary for "SYSTEM DESIGN", but the most close machinery example here could come from inverted pendulum.. systems behind inverted pendulums are dramatically similar to consensus algorithms of cryptos. and please don't worry about using the word "parasites" here. I already have a plenty of these hardwares in my lab. this is a scientific chat.
19  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ethereum Anti-ASIC fork, is it the right time for bitcoin too? on: January 14, 2019, 05:54:37 PM
Reminder:

"it is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself -- Professor Darwin"

Then why are we having a discussion about changing the environment to benefit those who haven't adjusted?  This topic is advocated reverting back to an earlier stage in evolution in the vague hope things evolve differently this time.

I don't understand why you guys see the crypto-world with the eyes of an ASIC miner. please try to see the crypto-world from a crypto's point of view. this topic never says "lets do something to block evolution of processing power out there", it is about "lets evolve bitcoin in a way that doesn't get hurt by evolution of processing power out there"..

You don't encourage weak species by removing all the predators and pretend that's how it was intended to be.  Current generation ASICs are the top of the food chain.  For something to no longer be top of the food chain, it either takes the introduction of a more advanced predator (the preferable option), or an extinction-level event (the likely outcome of changing the environment).  Older mining hardware eventually dies out, new hardware replaces it.  Life goes on.

no, no, this is where you do mistake. look, in the aspect of a crypto-world the bitcoin seats at the top of food-web. in the terms of biology, ASICs just enroll as parasites and leeches in this ecosystem. so this is very legitimate that species (cryptos) try to get rid of parasites that try to attach them and this can't consider as a devolution for cryptos.


Quote from: HeRetiK
(I personally wouldn't want to be the one buying a GPU that has been slaving away in a mining rig for months on end)

or you could buy them in half of the price (or less) and statistics show that the most problem with GPUs that has been in a mining rig is their MOSFET component that could get repaired with something around 30 USD.

20  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ethereum Anti-ASIC fork, is it the right time for bitcoin too? on: January 14, 2019, 10:14:10 AM
ASIC's are just a logical step in Bitcoins evolution

we could consider self-driven cars as an evolution for man-driven cars. vehicle detector cameras could also consider as an evolution for classic speed cameras. but my friend, how could we consider vehicle detector cameras as an evolution of cars at all? a camera is an environmental threat (or opportunity) that is growing out there - out of control of car manufacturers.. now if you drive faster than declared speed limit in a road (do not regulate yourself and improve your driving algorithms), then you will penalize by the speed camera (a consensus fork happens).

ASIC technology always exists and grows out there - out of control of bitcoin. if you want to talk about the evolution of bitcoin, you need to bring a new idea as a BIP. bitcoin is just an algorithm. BTW, evolution is not only about survival, it is also about perish and letting others survive..

Reminder:

"it is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself -- Professor Darwin"

UPDATE:
Plus proposals to hard fork to disable ASICs will never gain wide consensus from the community. Never.

it is alright. this is enough for everybody to know the truth that the PoW will die when Moore's law dies. accepting a problem is the first step for providing a solution.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!