Bitcoin devs discuss changing PoW to exclude ASICs

[rdnkjdi]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41aocn/httpsbitcoinorgenbitcoincorecapacityincreases_why/cz0z9ym

Soooo ... what happens with this?  The bitcoin redit and forums go with bitcoin core which is now GPU while the miners and most of the exchanges go with bitcoin classic?

I can't decide if this is laughable or a pretty big deal.

[saturn643]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41aocn/httpsbitcoinorgenbitcoincorecapacityincreases_why/cz0z9ym

Soooo ... what happens with this?  The bitcoin redit and forums go with bitcoin core which is now GPU while the miners and most of the exchanges go with bitcoin classic?

I can't decide if this is laughable or a pretty big deal.

There is no decision or plan about making a PoW algo change. He is simply saying that it is possible to change the algo and that code to do so exists (e.g. altcoins and luke-jr). Luke-Jr made a pull request to Bitcoin Classic saying that they should change the algo. I'm fairly certain that he was trolling with that request and was not actually being serious about it.

[rdnkjdi]

Yes, it would be possible to do that. Candidate code is already written.

That doesn't sound like trolling to me ... but maybe I'm wrong?

[saturn643]

Yes, it would be possible to do that. Candidate code is already written.

That doesn't sound like trolling to me ... but maybe I'm wrong?

It means that it is possible, and that code exists in order to do so. It doesn't mean that it will happen, it just means that it can happen.

Luke-jr did the trolling on github. The person who was commenting on reddit was nullc which is Greg Maxwell, not Luke-Jr.

[chennan]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41aocn/httpsbitcoinorgenbitcoincorecapacityincreases_why/cz0z9ym

Soooo ... what happens with this?  The bitcoin redit and forums go with bitcoin core which is now GPU while the miners and most of the exchanges go with bitcoin classic?

I can't decide if this is laughable or a pretty big deal.

Honestly, I see it as a pretty big deal IMO.  The fact of the matter is, is that the community is continually dividing and devs can't pick a road to go down.  Honestly, it would be nice for all the devs to come on the forum for like a week or two to do a AMA or just take questions and honestly listen to people whether they are big time miners or just regular people who use Bitcoin.  If we all sit down and lay out the pros and cons together I think we can start getting toward a consensus. 

The reason why this will never happen though is because devs like to think themselves as people who can out think anyone, and opinions from people on here or anywhere else (even the other devs) don't matter, because their opinion or philosophy of how bitcoin should work is right no matter what in their eyes...

[Gyrsur]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41aocn/httpsbitcoinorgenbitcoincorecapacityincreases_why/cz0z9ym

Soooo ... what happens with this?  The bitcoin redit and forums go with bitcoin core which is now GPU while the miners and most of the exchanges go with bitcoin classic?

I can't decide if this is laughable or a pretty big deal.

Honestly, I see it as a pretty big deal IMO.  The fact of the matter is, is that the community is continually dividing and devs can't pick a road to go down.  Honestly, it would be nice for all the devs to come on the forum for like a week or two to do a AMA or just take questions and honestly listen to people whether they are big time miners or just regular people who use Bitcoin.  If we all sit down and lay out the pros and cons together I think we can start getting toward a consensus.  

The reason why this will never happen though is because devs like to think themselves as people who can out think anyone, and opinions from people on here or anywhere else (even the other devs) don't matter, because their opinion or philosophy of how bitcoin should work is right no matter what in their eyes...

+21m

[MicroGuy]

+21m

"The mother of all hard forks!"

[danielW]

Is my understanding of this correct: The aim would be to change to a different proof of work at the same time as classics hard fork. This would mean there would be a cleaner separation with two separate coins and two separate blockchains. I.e. transactions on one chain would not be valid on the other chain.

If that is correct then I think this is a good idea (if classic supporters insist on hard-fork).

One problem is that SPV clients would not be able to distinguish the difference right?

[Carlton Banks]

Is my understanding of this correct: The aim would be to change to a different proof of work at the same time as classics hard fork. This would mean there would be a cleaner separation with two separate coins and two separate blockchains.

If that is correct then I think this is a good idea (if classic supporters insist on hard-fork).

I wouldn't be surprised if (under that scenario) Core continues, Classic fails after weeks/months, but then more waves of infiltration attempts of Core begin afresh. At that point, anyone can give up pretending this isn't one huge campaign to wrest control of the code.

[johnyj]

Bitcoin's value is basically decided by its mining cost, if you change to another POW, you have to rebuild the difficulty and mining cost in that hash network before the coin on that chain would have any significant value. But as long as the original POW network is strong, few would be interested in another POW coin

A forked coin might be possible to maintain its value without corresponding hash power for a while due to demand from users. But that will be short lived, once difficulty adjust down, people will quickly realize that they can mine coin instead of buy, so they mine and immediately sell for a huge profit, until the price were dragged down to mining cost, which is almost zero at the beginning of a new POW algo adoption

[Dekker3D]

Exclude ASIC =  Dead bitcoin
bitcoin price is decided by mining cost and demand,taking this action will make bitcoin dead like other altcoins

[Lauda]

Please stop talking nonsense and panicking. As you know anyone is free to make a proposal. There is no viable scenario in which this gains consensus in Bitcoin. In other words,

Soooo ... what happens with this? 

Nothing.

I can't decide if this is laughable or a pretty big deal.

Laughable? This would be a very big deal, however it can't gain consensus.

[Cconvert2G36]

This is analogous to a negotiation... where you [gmax] place a loaded pistol on the table facing the other participants [miners] before you ask them for an answer. Reeks of desperation.

[BellaBitBit]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41aocn/httpsbitcoinorgenbitcoincorecapacityincreases_why/cz0z9ym

Soooo ... what happens with this?  The bitcoin redit and forums go with bitcoin core which is now GPU while the miners and most of the exchanges go with bitcoin classic?

I can't decide if this is laughable or a pretty big deal.

Honestly, I see it as a pretty big deal IMO.  The fact of the matter is, is that the community is continually dividing and devs can't pick a road to go down.  Honestly, it would be nice for all the devs to come on the forum for like a week or two to do a AMA or just take questions and honestly listen to people whether they are big time miners or just regular people who use Bitcoin.  If we all sit down and lay out the pros and cons together I think we can start getting toward a consensus. 

This is going to be essential  at some point and probably sooner than later.

[Jet Cash]

Surely Bitcoin value is determined by scarcity, and demand. Mining is just one factor affecting scarcity. It could be that an increase in the number of people (like me) who see Bitcoin as a long term investment will be more significant. In the current economic turmoil, you need to have a mix of investments - gold, Bitcoin, cash and strategic metals are all good, bank deposits, pension funds, most equities, and property are all vulnerable. Demand is influenced by ease of use, confidence and investment opinion. The increasing number of support applications will increase demand and improve usability. Allowing Bitcoin transactions to be revered will reduce confidence and thus demand. With regards to mining, transaction confirmation speeds amy become more important than adding a few more coins to the pool.

Please remember that I am new to Bitcoin, so I still do not have a complete understanding of the technology, but I may still have some of the opinions of the inexperienced.

[NorrisK]

That would be a very bad decision... They would undermine everybody who has built the fundementals of bitcoin.

Also, a change of algorithm for bitcoin, would just result in asics for the new algorithm and potentially unfair advantages to good programmers who can code FPGAs in the meantime.

[franky1]

seems luke Jr was trolling to cause debate,

but if it strangely did get implemented.. id give it 2 months before china created SHA3 based asic chips..
so i see no point in changing the algo in such a dramatic risk to security(difficulty dump), just for a 2 month gap of GPU farm mining before the ASIC race relaunched again

[Amph]

yes sure, and you think that almost 1 exa of hash will be pro this change, it's basically asking them to lose all their future profit with this change, for nothing because asic can be built for every new algo

so it's even utterly pointless to do

[Undermood]

Exclude ASIC =  Dead bitcoin
bitcoin price is decided by mining cost and demand,taking this action will make bitcoin dead like other altcoins

yes, it will never be like that. No miners will agree with this extreme changes. i
It will kill bitcoin. I cannot imagin the consequence.

[Cconvert2G36]

yes sure, and you think that almost 1 exa of hash will be pro this change, it's basically asking them to lose all their future profit with this change, for nothing because asic can be built for every new algo

so it's even utterly pointless to do

You are missing the entire point.

Changing the PoW would be necessary to keep 1MB CoreCoin working in the event that a hashing majority decided to hardfork to 2MB blocks in Bitcoin. Each side would be calling the other an altcoin... and this change is the only way to keep the minority chain functioning and protected from attack by the ASIC hashing majority.