📅 Original date posted:2017-04-06
📝 Original message:>
> Another thing that could be done is increase the number of times SHA256 is
> performed... but now we are really talking about altering the PoW
> algorithm. Correct me if I'm wrong: The more number of times its
> performed, the less any patent-able pre or post calculation
> skipping/caching have an effect on efficiency.
>
The more complex that the PoW algorithm is, the more likely it is that
someone finds a unique and special method for optimizing it that they are
able to patent. And the more difficult it is to create specialized hardware
to run that algorithm, meaning that there will be fewer players who are
able to do so profitably (higher fixed costs).
If you want to talk about changing the PoW algorithm, you really want to be
looking to simplify it so that it's more obvious (not that you can ever be
completely sure) that there are no hidden or unexpected optimizations that
someone could patent.
We can even do a lot better than SHA. Cryptographic hash functions need to
be collision resistant, and collision resistance is the property that
usually breaks. Preimage resistance and partial preimage resistance (and
second preimage resistance) is generally easier to protect - to the best of
our knowledge, md5 would actually still be a secure PoW function today.
It's bitterly ironic to me that so much research and effort has been put
into making asic-resistant PoW algorithms when in the long run
asic-resistance only leads to problems like these - single parties who have
found significant optimizations and not shared them, completely destroying
any chance of a level playing field and giving themselves a centralized
monopoly - a result that is supremely unhealthy for the rest of the
community.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170406/35d33b8c/attachment.html>;
David Vorick [ARCHIVE] /
npub14h…9yjx0
2023-06-07 19:59:28
in reply to nevent1q…tgqv
Author Public Key
npub14h948ndawt32ps3y225sslch8344tmw8k5z0lxuxr6wq9tu6sl2qj9yjx0Published at
2023-06-07 19:59:28Event JSON
{
"id": "c3366ac44e07b06658cb6c82506d4effbd3717c54017b2cddb23dae5cb2fbe9d",
"pubkey": "adcb53cdbd72e2a0c22452a9087f173c6b55edc7b504ff9b861e9c02af9a87d4",
"created_at": 1686160768,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ad36e2a7543163ffef3218fa3d55149ec67fbe14dd109a89d2940c12712bdc10",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"971f5deab56b98d5e5a5069b20971ac2b8f86dc98e84ee63ddc728cd8dc9ed60",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b8acca17a6f74c77cd8a4899846d99012d1b52082a01a2d2753fcb0c6669a60b"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-04-06\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e Another thing that could be done is increase the number of times SHA256 is\n\u003e performed... but now we are really talking about altering the PoW\n\u003e algorithm. Correct me if I'm wrong: The more number of times its\n\u003e performed, the less any patent-able pre or post calculation\n\u003e skipping/caching have an effect on efficiency.\n\u003e\n\nThe more complex that the PoW algorithm is, the more likely it is that\nsomeone finds a unique and special method for optimizing it that they are\nable to patent. And the more difficult it is to create specialized hardware\nto run that algorithm, meaning that there will be fewer players who are\nable to do so profitably (higher fixed costs).\n\nIf you want to talk about changing the PoW algorithm, you really want to be\nlooking to simplify it so that it's more obvious (not that you can ever be\ncompletely sure) that there are no hidden or unexpected optimizations that\nsomeone could patent.\n\nWe can even do a lot better than SHA. Cryptographic hash functions need to\nbe collision resistant, and collision resistance is the property that\nusually breaks. Preimage resistance and partial preimage resistance (and\nsecond preimage resistance) is generally easier to protect - to the best of\nour knowledge, md5 would actually still be a secure PoW function today.\n\nIt's bitterly ironic to me that so much research and effort has been put\ninto making asic-resistant PoW algorithms when in the long run\nasic-resistance only leads to problems like these - single parties who have\nfound significant optimizations and not shared them, completely destroying\nany chance of a level playing field and giving themselves a centralized\nmonopoly - a result that is supremely unhealthy for the rest of the\ncommunity.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170406/35d33b8c/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "c3b95df33fc4b2c17ee66b8af5020d491dafe98faf45a96ee948a9aea1474d5d7b077c1499df2c169dddc15a6380fa5890394fd1887379ef3044afafb8a2ca19"
}