to what ? scrypt ?
LTC already use that tech
If for some reason that's what needed, sure, why not?
I don't think the Sha256 ASICs can be modified for Scrypt. They hold enough hashing power to ensure SHA 256 remains. Scrypt would be a hard fork which the ASIC users wont adopt. Most users will protect their investment at any cost.
That's the point. If the proof of work algorithm were to change, the SHA256 ASICs wouldn't hold
any power.
This would be a hard fork, probably with temporarily two competing blockchain version.
But if the Bitcoin's survival depend on it, everyone with a vested interest will just switch to another proof of work algorithm
(Even if some miners don't like it.)
Furthermore, we would have a bunch of Litecoin miners that would gladly use their processing power to mine bitcoins.
Marvellous, isn't it?
If by marvelous you mean blocks that take 100 times longer to complete until difficulty adjusts back to GPU level . . . Which would take maybe 6 years, if we hit 2 Ph/s in in the next few months, which I bet we do. Also, in a competition, how would GPU's ever out compete ASICS?
Do you guys even know how Bitcoin works?
Ok, imagine that everyone is using gold as money.
There is a great overlord who owns most of the gold mines on earth. Most think his power is almost absolute.
Now everyone, for whatever reason, decide to switch to using silver instead of gold.
All the gold currently in the people's hands immediately turns into silver, but not what's still underground.
All those able to mine silver are quite happy to mine for something that is so valuable.
What is the power of the gold overlord? Nothing. He had power only as long as people were using gold.
Back to Bitcoin.
What is the power of SHA256 ASICs if the proof of work changes? Zit, nada, nothing!
They can't prevent a change in the proof of work.
In a hard fork, that's really not a problem to adjust the difficulty level to account for the now missing ASICs.
You seem to think that Bitcoin is now as it will always be.
Bitcoin has changed and will continue to do so in order to improve itself.
If a 2 min per block time is
really needed, then Bitcoin can be changed for that.
Most of the alt-coins advocates don't seem to realize that for everyone invested in Bitcoin, it's in their own interest to improve it if needed.
Bitcoin could even end up as an identical copy of Litecoin if that was needed.
What would the advantage versus just moving to Litecoin?
Every bitcoiner could keep his "wealth" already in the blockchain.
Merchants can keep using the same software.
And every blockchain uses are still valid (such as proof of existence).
Poll
