rich1.0npub1xtqansnal58rjnnxvyke6kzuvxsz0twg4456awy6ff0525yqgjxqjacz68https://nostr.ae/npub1xtqansnal58rjnnxvyke6kzuvxsz0twg4456awy6ff0525yqgjxqjacz68njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2016-05-11 📝 Original message:Ehm, I though those discussions about "ASICs are bad, because X" ended years ago by starting "ASIC unfriendly" altcoins. ASIC industry is twisted even without AsicBoost. I don't see any particular reason why to change rules just because of 10% edge. This is opening Pandora box and it is potentially extremely dangerous for the health of the network. You cannot know in advance what you'll break by changing the rules. Disclaimer: I don't have any stake in any ASIC company/facility. slush On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner < > sergio.d.lerner at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> You can find it here: >> https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/the-re-design-of-the-bitcoin-block-header/ >> >> Basically, the idea is to put in the first 64 bytes a 4 byte hash of the >> second 64-byte chunk. That design also allows increased nonce space in the >> first 64 bytes. >> >> My mistake here. I didn't recalled correctly my own idea. The idea is to > include in the second 64-byte chunk a 4-byte hash of the first chunk, not > the opposite. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160511/9940ac75/attachment.html>