Author: Erik Aronesty 2017-04-10 00:20:49
Published on: 2017-04-10T00:20:49+00:00
The discussion on bitcoin-dev mailing list revolves around the possibility of changing Proof of Work (PoW) algorithm in Bitcoin. There is a concern that ASIC-resistant PoW algorithms are not really resistant to ASICs and will eventually lead to centralization of mining. Therefore, some members suggest that rather than attempting to create ASIC-resistant algorithms, the focus should be on regularly changing the PoW algorithm every 7-9 years. This would keep Bitcoin in commodity hardware and out of the hands of centralized manufacturing for many years. Additionally, it could be an emergent property of cryptocurrencies in general that POW *must* change every 7-9 years. David Vorick thinks that while he is strongly in favor of PoW research that investigates better PoW, there are no obvious strategies known yet to improve substantially on computation heavy hashcash. Jared Lee Richardson points out that even if an asic-resistant algorithm is developed, it is only a matter of time before it gets its own ASICs. He suggests that the more complicated the algorithm, the more secretive the asic technology is developed. Furthermore, multi-megawatt GPU farms have already formed in areas with low energy costs, making it difficult to prevent centralization of mining. Erik Aronesty proposes a ramp down of reliance on SHA-256 and a ramp-up on some of the proven NP-complete graph-theoretic or polygon manipulation POW. It could be necessary to have regular, high-consensus POW changes as a part of good maintenance of cryptocurrency in general. These changes could be used to flip-flop between the current and the "next one" every 8 years or so with a ramp-down starting in the 7th year. The network would respond well to a well-known cutover date, enabling rapid-response to quantum tech or other needed POW switch.
Updated on: 2023-06-12T00:02:51.446902+00:00