<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1u770f582qk4l6eagyv9jd2x7wqujlu9ckfka7ru9sgjqtxhlzq9s4ym47x</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1u770f582qk4l6eagyv9jd2x7wqujlu9ckfka7ru9sgjqtxhlzq9s4ym47x</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2014-07-04&#xA;📝 Original message:On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 06:53:47AM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Something similar could be applied to your idea.  We use the hash of a&#xA;&gt; prevBlockHash||nonce as the starting point for 1,000,000 lookup&#xA;&gt; operations.  The output of the previous lookup is used to determine&#xA;&gt; which block and tx (perhaps which chunk of 32 bytes within that tx) is&#xA;&gt; used for the next lookup operation.   This means that in order to do the&#xA;&gt; hashing, you need the entire blockchain available to you, even though&#xA;&gt; you&#39;ll only be using a small fraction of it for each &#34;hash&#34;.  This might&#xA;&gt; achieve what you&#39;re describing without actually requiring the full 20 GB&#xA;&gt; of reading on ever hash.&#xA;&#xA;Anything involving lots of unpredictable memory accesses to a large&#xA;chunk of fast memory is unASICable. That data vector could be derived&#xA;by the same means as an one time pad, and loaded and locked into&#xA;memory after boot. If you make it large enough it won&#39;t profit from&#xA;embedded RAM bandwidth/speedup. The only way to speed up would be clustering,&#xA;which doesn&#39;t offer economies of scale.</html></oembed>