Post
Topic
Board Altcoin Discussion
Re: Altcoin POW innovations headed in the wrong direction. Let a chip designer pick.
by
tromp
on 13/04/2014, 02:16:46 UTC
Sure, it's a 1024-bit word.  I think of it that way because it's the word size of the memory on the ideal hardware for scrypt(N=1).

So, therefore, make the memory have 2^N words where N is the number of bits read or written in each memory transaction.  So, for example, 2^32 entries each being 32 bits.  Or 2^16 entries of 16 bits each.  Then the "backward pointers" cost as much space as they save.

Hmm, I see what you mean.
Maybe you don't even need separate filling-memory and reading-memory phases. Something like
(assuming a hash function mapping 1024 bits to 1024 bits):

Code:
state = hash(header)
do 2^32 times {
  interpret state as 16 pairs (i,v) of 32-bit values; for each pair set mem[i] := v
  state = hash(state)
  interpret state as vector of 32 bit indices; mix in all 32 mem[i]
  state = hash(state)
}
 

Hmm; that still needs an initialization phase, unless we assume the memory starts out all 0.

But I still don't see these schemes as viable PoWs due to the lack of quick verifiability...