Author: Erik Aronesty 2017-04-09 18:44:47
Published on: 2017-04-09T18:44:47+00:00
The idea of a POW (Proof of Work) change for Bitcoin has been discussed, with some suggesting that a ramp down of reliance on SHA-256 and a ramp-up on proven, np-complete graph-theoretic or polygon manipulation POW could keep Bitcoin in commodity hardware and away from centralized manufacturing for many years. This would result in a level playing field that is critical to keeping centralization from becoming a defining feature of Bitcoin over the long term. The risk of state actor control and botnet attacks is seen as less than state-actor manipulation of specialized manufacturing of "SHA-256 forever" hardware. It has also been suggested that regular, high-consensus POW changes might even be necessary for good maintenance of cryptocurrency in general. The proposal is to kill the existing POW, and use an as-yet undefined, but deployment-bit ready POW field to flip-flop between the current and the "next one" every 8 years or so, with a ramp down beginning in the 7th year. A stub function that is guaranteed to fail unless a new consensus POW is selected within seven years could also be implemented. Some believe that the network would respond well to a well-known cutover date, which would enable rapid-response to quantum tech or some other needed POW switch since the mechanisms would be in-place and ready to switch as needed. While some people panic over POW changes as being irresponsible, it is only irresponsible if done irresponsibly. However, others argue against such a policy change, stating that end users of Bitcoin would not want to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack by enabling patented PoW algorithms instead of preventing their use.
Updated on: 2023-06-12T00:02:21.923410+00:00