<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 <a href="mailto:allen@bearbonds.org" class="">allen@bearbonds.org</a> wrote:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">...</blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class="">In order to achieve acceptable speeds, Bear Bonds uses a novel hash <br class="">algorithm that involves three knapsacks and a Diophantine polynomial <br class="">all computed in the prime field. The details are given in the "Bear <br class="">Bonds Transaction Protocol" paper that can be found on our website at <br class=""><a href="https://www.bearbonds.org/" class="">https://www.bearbonds.org/</a> (at the bottom of the "Technology" tab). <br class="">We also have a pre-release version of our software that can be found <br class="">under the "Software" tab (binaries only--the source code has not yet <br class="">been released but we would be willing to provide it for research or <br class="">security auditing purposes).<br class=""><br class="">The time required to create a proof on a midrange laptop is roughly 4 <br class="">seconds per input, with a modest memory requirement of 85 KB per input.<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""></div><div class="">Why not include a well-tested algorithm, such as SHA-512, in the hash chain? And assuming one would trust a novel hash algorithm before years of analysis have taken place, why is "a modest memory requirement of 85 KB per input” a good thing? It seems to me such a tiny memory retirement quickly leads to control of mining by the custom chip crowd. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Arnold Reinhold</div></body></html>