Quote from: zooko on March 19, 2017, 05:31:57 PM

Quote from: BitUsher on March 19, 2017, 04:21:20 PM

The concern I have with it is that there is already a FPGA developed with Equihash, and we dont want future ASICs/FPGA's from alts attacking bitcoin,

I doubt that this is true. Can you point me to where you heard that?

You should probably think carefully and make up your mind whether decentralization or 51%-attack-resistance are more important to you:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/zcash-creator-on-the-upcoming-zcash-launch-privacy-and-the-unfinished-internet-revolution-1472568389/

(Search in text for "fundamental trade-off".)

Zooko has a point here. There are trade-offs, but these are only some of the concerns.
Take Monero for example. It is CPU/GPU but the CPUs do better for the money invested.
The issue with it is that it is highly mined by botnet.

If Bitcoin goes the CPU route with its economic heft, it will encourage botnet mining to a significantly greater extent. This could have consequences for public relations, legality, VC investment appetite and other problematic results.

If the goal is to 'forever end the specter of miner influence on development direction', CPU PoW change might not be radical enough of a change, Bitcoin might have to go one of the more tested PoS methods, or find another solution to the Byzantine General problem.

If PoS is chosen, the longest successful, tried and tested PoS chain is probably Bitshares, which was refined again for Steem.

If a CPU PoS is chosen, may the governments of the world have mercy upon Bitcoin.