pull down to refresh
250 sats \ 1 reply \ @Brunswick 20 Sep 2022 \ on: Why did Saylor say "proprietary software" in his article? bitcoin
The ASICs are doing a very well known and standardized secure hash. An ASIC resistant proof of work will be less understood and likely eternally modified to avoid the next ASIC innovation to support the said hash. In addition to a constantly morphing, custom, and not well understood proof of work algorithm, the hash will use GPUs which in turn use proprietary drivers and libraries to support the optimal use of the GPU hardware. To rely on an assumption of 'One-CPU/One-Miner' and that somehow this design goal will prevent loads of money from bringing into being a customized mining supercomputer is to assume the game ends because you moved the goalposts.
The reason Bitcoin is a success, in part, is due to its simplicity. To use a convoluted and 'proprietary' (or customized) POW algorithm is to muddy the design. Every computer scientist understands the essentials of sha256 and trusts that its sufficiently irreversible. This use of standard data structures and algorithms to build a distributed federation protocol is necessary for trust. This is the reason bitcoin hasn't adopted zkSnarks, not only is the cryptography novel but the seed signing ceremony requires trust. Bitcoin is designed to be trustless, and this is why it on its own can be trusted.
What Saylor is saying here is that to change the hash to something ASIC resistant and poorly understood is to strain this trust.
In addition to a constantly morphing, custom, and not well understood proof of work algorithm, the hash will use GPUs which in turn use proprietary drivers and libraries to support the optimal use of the GPU hardware.
Ah, interesting. Didn't think of this before. Also, GPU manufacturers (like Nvidia) have tried to implement mining resistancy; making this whole ordeal even more awkward.
The reason Bitcoin is a success, in part, is due to its simplicity.
Yes, I agree.
What Saylor is saying here is that to change the hash to something ASIC resistant and poorly understood is to strain this trust.
Ahh, another interesting perspective on what he may meant. I can see your point when removing the parentheses (which make this paragraph a bit hard to read):
The only proven technique for creating a digital commodity is Proof of Work. If we remove the dedicated hardware (SHA-256 ASICs) and the dedicated energy that powers those mining rigs, we are left with a network secured by proprietary software running on generic computers.
So yes, he actually means the SHA-256 ASICs and the energy needed for PoW. Removing those would result in proprietary software on generic computers as you explained.
That makes a lot of sense, thank you! I think I would accept this answer if I would need to accept an answer.
PS: I also mentioned here why I don't think ASIC resistancy does what it intends to do: #70865
Would love to hear your opinion. Is what I said there similar to what you said here?
reply