How much coke is he doing?pic.twitter.com/77qkK0M0VI
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
SHA256 is already broken today, in terms of usage as a PoW algorithm (which is different from usage as a cryptographic hash function).
This is ridiculous thinking Luke.
No, it is the truth.
No Luke, it's completely absurd. The market is bringing in competition, Bitmain's last two attempts at 10 nm chips were borked purportedly while one competitor has 10nm already and another is pushing out 7nm, you are being impulsive and reckless in pushing for this.
If their new competition is at all competent, they should be more than prepared to survive a PoW change just fine.
This is absurd Luke. That is centrally planning who is allowed to compete in a market, and is completely unethical and immoral from where I stand. I will not under absolutely any circumstances get behind such an action.
How is it centrally planning, when the decision is made by a decentralised community? Why do you defend a centralised SHA2 issuance instead?
You either think that Bitcoin will survive entirely due to market incentives, or you don't Luke. If you don't then you and I are here for two entirely different projects.
Changing the system because Bitmain carved itself a large piece of the pie is entirely against the ethos of Bitcoin. Top down incentive pressures are what we seek to avoid.pic.twitter.com/98jpmMi0tf
The PoW change that Luke recommended previously was an SHA2 variant “or” change. Whereas each manufacturer would produce an ASIC re: Halong SHA2 or Canaan SHA2 or GMO SHA2, and malicious miners (presumably Bitmain) wouldn’t have their SHA2 variant included in the PoW algo(s).
There are many possible PoW changes, with varying pros and cons. As broken as SHA2 is today, I would support (almost?) any of them.
Relevant question, how do we know for sure, asic vendors sell miners as efficient as they use for themselves to mine..?
Don't tolerate ASIC vendors mining, for a start... That's absurd on its own right - companies should not compete against their customers like that.
For one they can use the hardware exclusively until it's no longer competitive for others to use the hardware when they release it. Just unethical monopoly.
I see nothing unethical whatsoever. If you build something, why shouldn't you be allowed to use it?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.