5 ms·
> For example sha256 proved not to be a good hashing algo because the reliance on ASICs, which centralizes mining. Another important area in research is the dev
by Taek 10y ago
> For example sha256 proved not to be a good hashing algo because the reliance on ASICs, which centralizes mining. Another important area in research is the development of other greener forms of blockchain security such as Proof of Stake, which will most likely replace Proof Of Work once perfected.
Theoretically speaking all algorithms are able to be optimized by ASICs. ASIC resistance is not about making ASICs impossible, it's about making them expensive. But any secure global PoW currency is going to have enough mining reward to drive ASIC development.
The really ASIC resistant algorithms will have an R&D overhead of hundreds of millions. Which means if one player can get in really and keep their R&D secret or patented, they can amortize costs and more easily block newcomers. Overall, even without intentional barriers, you will have a much more centralized coin in the long run.
For any coin intending to become worth billions or trillions, you really want to embrace ASICs and design a PoW that makes it as easy as possible for newcomers to profitably develop and manufacture ASICs.
- flashmob 10y agoThanks for clarifying. Sorry, didn't mean to bring out the ASIC debate so strongly - my point was mainly that the research is not exclusive, and can be shared between projects, as in the litecoin using Segwit example.
- danielpatrick 10y agoOr use PoS to avoid the situation entirely.
- VMG 10y agoIt's not clear you get to keep the good parts of PoW then.
- danielpatrick 10y agoWhat do you consider the good parts of PoW to be? (serious question)
- Taek 10y agoConsidering the core algorithms behind proof of stake have been around since the 80's, and that Bitcoin's core contribution is usually cited as PoW, there are probably some good parts. It's a weird concept to accept but actually the really interesting and useful property of PoW is that you can provide a proof that you destroyed physical resources (provably wasting electricity) which are committed to one and exactly one interpretation of history. Stake based systems lock or burn or manage coins, but there's no provable tether from those coins (defined only within the system) to the real world. PoW has an undeniable tether to the real world in the form of waste.
- flashmob 10y ago> useful property of PoW is that you can provide a proof that you destroyed physical resources Thought experiment: Say there's a PoW currency A, and PoS currency B. Alice mines A. Now Bob wants currency A, but he can't afford to mine currency A, because he needs special hardware. So Bob exchanges currency B for currency A with Alice. Alice now holds some currency B, and Bob is happy with A. Now the question is, would Alice see that she "destroyed physical resources" for currency B? (Yes, to Alice she had to destroy physical resources) Later, Alice wants to transact with Charlie, who also holds currency B. She transfers her B to Charlie, that was bought using A. Would Charlie care that Alice had to "destroy physical resources" to get B? (No, that information is useless in a PoS system) Some time in the future, currency B becomes very popular (as it's just as secure and not wasting resources like currency A). Alice wants more B too, so she exchanges her B with the masses. Eventually, currency B takes over A in popularity, and by that time, Alice has exchanged all her A for B. The question is, would Alice now view that to get B, she had to "destroy physical resources"? Would that fact matter if she continues to transact with Charlie?
- kang 10y ago>Bob exchanges currency B for currency A with Alice. Alice now holds some currency B There is no reason for Alice to want B, a less secure money than A which they already hold. If Alice were perfect mathematician, this exchange would never occur.
- kang 10y agoAnd introduce multiple other problems instead. There is no PoS system existing that is proven to be secure.