Why? We're talking about Bitcoin. Unless you mean to one of their concrete PoWs for some reason. I didn't see much documentation on their PoWs there.
Yes. Specifically, we're talking about changing Bitcoin's Proof-of-Work.
OK try this then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-3I referenced Nexus as a real-world example because of their use of a combination of Skein-1024 and Keccak-1600 algorithms which leads to an ASIC and quantum computer Proof-Of-Work which is what this thread was about.
I propose if you're going to change Bitcoin's proof-of-work to something other than the current SHA-2(56) to something else then you might as well go all in on SHA-3 to make it even more secure against near-future quantum computing technology (which governments may already have).
SHA-3 does that.
For reference here are the lifespans of various cryptographic hash functions including our beloved SHA-2(56)
http://valerieaurora.org/hash.htmlAs you can see SHA-3 (Keccak) is the most secure and it has been brought up earlier in this thread.
Well, if you have been paying attention, Luke already coded a Keccak PoW change last year. It would literally take just changing the activation block if that was the change.
But thanks for your input.
I'm very familiar with it. I have coded a Keccak lib myself and a BLAKE as well.
We're looking mostly at GPU friendly (possibly memory-hard, depending on the algo) PoW that will provide a good compromise against generic botnets and ASICs to gain time.