Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 08, 2016, 03:15:59 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 08, 2016, 03:14:27 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 08, 2016, 05:24:30 AM

ASIC-resistant PoW seems like a delightful idea to me. Is memory latency the barrier to stand upon for the ages? Hmm, that sounds familiar.

Of course no PoW proving algorithm (of any design) can be as efficient on less optimized consumer hardware and retail electricity (10 - 20 cents per KWH) as compared to highly optimized ASIC mining farms on 0 - 4 cents per KWH electricity (hydropower colocated or China's collectivized corruption). Even distributing ASICs to consumers won't level the playing field and not only because of differences in electricity costs, yet also due to economies-of-scale, access to lower interest loans, better connectivity to the major pools of the P2P announcement network, amortization of block chain verification over great income, etc..

Profitable PoW will always centralize, and there is a selfish mining attack always going on and there is no such thing as a requirement for 25 or 33% of the hashrate, because the selfish mining is built into the economics of Bitcoin (e.g. the amortization of verification costs, etc).

That is why I designed an UNprofitable PoW system. There is no other hope.

Memory latency barrier can't protect against those who implement mining algorithm in another kind of architecture. Von Neumann/Harvard architecture is not the only way. For example, artificial neural networks can do even super-Turing computations and they don't have von Neumann bottleneck problem.