user78451: Bitcoin uses a Proof of Work algorithm that makes it the perfect victim of ASIC mining. As a result, hash power is not very decentralized (more than 50% of Bitcoin's hash power is concentrated in China and most of that is concentrated in a small area). Furthermore, considering the fact that just a handful of companies produce efficient ASIC hardware, those companies essentially have complete control over the hashing power of the entire network.
Other algorithms have been developed that are memory intensive and are ASIC-resistant.
Is there a reason why Bitcoin won't move to ASIC-resistant algorithms (aside from the fact that it would require a hard fork)? In other words, do ASIC-prone algorithms fundamentally provide any benefit (in terms of security or scalability) over ASIC-resistant algorithms?

user-1: 
Bitcoin uses a Proof of Work algorithm that makes it the perfect victim of ASIC mining. As a result, it is not very decentralized (more than 50% of Bitcoin's hash power is concentrated in China and most of that is concentrated in a small area). Furthermore, considering the fact that just a handful of companies produce efficient ASIC hardware those companies essentially have complete control over the hashing power of the entire network.


Using the term "victim" is your opinion. China dominates in hardware and cheap electricity which is not limited to Bitcoin but other things people or industries use in electronics, computers, mobile etc. It is expected that most of the manufacturers and miners will be from a place them has better incentives to do so. Although I do not consider it being more than 50%. Mining pools are mostly based in China but miners are around the world and difficult to locate and get accurate numbers. The articles that I have read about such stats involve lot of assumptions that fits the narrative.

Stratum v2 will help in decentralization to some extent if you consider few mining pools are responsible for most of the hashrate: https://braiins.com/blog/stratum-v2-bitcoin-decentralization

Miners from other countries have started to join including Venezuela, Pakistan, Iran, Russia etc.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7a3j3/venezuelas-socialist-regime-is-mining-bitcoin-in-a-bunker-to-generate-cash
https://www.bolnews.com/latest/2021/01/khyber-pakhtunkhwa-government-to-install-two-bitcoin-mining-plants/
https://www.trustnodes.com/2020/10/29/iran-changes-law-to-use-bitcoin-for-imports
https://www.coindesk.com/russian-oil-drilling-giant-opens-mining-farm



Is there a reason why Bitcoin won't move to ASIC resistant algorithms (aside from the fact that it would require a hard fork)? In other words, do ASIC-prone algorithms fundamentally provide any benefit (in terms of security or scalability) over ASIC resistant algorithms?

One of the drawbacks in using such algorithms is mining by botnets. Exploiting
backdoored machines (So many CPUs online right now are easy targets for hackers and
governments).
Example: https://www.coindesk.com/botnet-infected-5000-computers-monero-miner
Bitcoin needs hashpower that is relatively stable, focused on bitcoin mining and
secures it for long term.



user41313: The downsides outweigh the upsides: as you mentioned this would require a hard fork, and would leave everyone (not just mining farms) who owns a Bitcoin miner with a very expensive paperweight, and as such it's unlikely a large enough portion of the community is willing to make the change for it to be successful. It would require throwing away a significant amount of infrastructure.
I suppose one day if it were to become a problem where Bitcoin miners are colluding to try and rewrite the blockchain or censor transactions, then we could reevaluate this. However, mining already comes with such razor-thin margins that it is extremely unlikely miners will be throwing away their profits to do this: they would all have to agree to work against their own best interests.

user5406: ASIC-resistance is a mirage. Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) are made to do one thing only and will always beat general purpose hardware.

"General purpose computational devices like CPUs, GPUs, and even DRAM all make substantial compromises to their true potential in order to be useful for general computation."
–David Vorick, "State of Cryptocurrency Mining"

As an "ASIC-resistant" cryptocurrency appreciates in value, eventually someone would find it economically viable to produce an ASIC. Given the high development cost and relatively lower increase in profitability, for an ASIC-resistant algorithm such a market would be even more likely to be dominated by a single producer.
Instead, consider the upsides of an ASIC-friendly hashing algorithm. ASICs beat general purpose hardware by magnitudes which quickly curbed botnets mining with CPU or GPU. As ASICs are the most efficient tools to turn power into security, similar dominance of all available hash rate to Bitcoin's security would take magnitudes more CPUs or GPUs at vastly worse energy efficiency. It's easier for manufacturers to enter the market, which opens production up to more competition. Since the hardware is network specific, miners cannot hop networks to pursue every tiny shift in relative profitability, resulting in a more stable hash rate. Due to the upfront cost of the hardware, miners are—quite literally—invested in the success of the network.
After over a decade, ASICs have caught up to state-of-the-art miniaturization. Product cycles have slowed down. This reduces the advantage of mining operators with close ties to manufacturers, as the longer lifespan of hardware allows it to spread further geographically. When machines run longer, the initial hardware investment is smaller compared to the on-going energy costs which favors locations with cheap electricity. While China does have relatively cheap electricity, there are various regions with stranded energy due to abundant hydro, solar, or geothermal sources all across the globe. While previously most hash rate was situated in China, the recent crackdown on the Bitcoin mining industry there has expedited an already existing downward trend. Hopefully a lot of the currently migrating hash rate will show up in numerous different locales.
Finally, a change of the hashing algorithm would necessarily require a hard fork. Given the doubtful benefits, such a hard fork would be extremely controversial.

78451: <p>Bitcoin uses a Proof of Work algorithm that makes it the perfect victim of ASIC mining. As a result, hash power is not very decentralized (more than 50% of Bitcoin's hash power is concentrated in China and most of that is concentrated in a small area). Furthermore, considering the fact that just a handful of companies produce efficient ASIC hardware, those companies essentially have complete control over the hashing power of the entire network.</p>
<p>Other algorithms have been developed that are memory intensive and are ASIC-resistant.</p>
<p>Is there a reason why Bitcoin won't move to ASIC-resistant algorithms (aside from the fact that it would require a hard fork)? In other words, do ASIC-prone algorithms fundamentally provide any benefit (in terms of security or scalability) over ASIC-resistant algorithms?</p>
 -1: <blockquote>
<p>Bitcoin uses a Proof of Work algorithm that makes it the perfect victim of ASIC mining. As a result, it is not very decentralized (more than 50% of Bitcoin's hash power is concentrated in China and most of that is concentrated in a small area). Furthermore, considering the fact that just a handful of companies produce efficient ASIC hardware those companies essentially have complete control over the hashing power of the entire network.</p>
</blockquote>
<ol>
<li><p>Using the term &quot;victim&quot; is your opinion. China dominates in hardware and cheap electricity which is not limited to Bitcoin but other things people or industries use in electronics, computers, mobile etc. It is expected that most of the manufacturers and miners will be from a place them has better incentives to do so. Although I do not consider it being more than 50%. Mining pools are mostly based in China but miners are around the world and difficult to locate and get accurate numbers. The articles that I have read about such stats involve lot of assumptions that fits the narrative.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Stratum v2 will help in decentralization to some extent if you consider few mining pools are responsible for most of the hashrate: <a href="https://braiins.com/blog/stratum-v2-bitcoin-decentralization" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://braiins.com/blog/stratum-v2-bitcoin-decentralization</a></p>
</li>
<li><p>Miners from other countries have started to join including Venezuela, Pakistan, Iran, Russia etc.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7a3j3/venezuelas-socialist-regime-is-mining-bitcoin-in-a-bunker-to-generate-cash" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7a3j3/venezuelas-socialist-regime-is-mining-bitcoin-in-a-bunker-to-generate-cash</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.bolnews.com/latest/2021/01/khyber-pakhtunkhwa-government-to-install-two-bitcoin-mining-plants/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.bolnews.com/latest/2021/01/khyber-pakhtunkhwa-government-to-install-two-bitcoin-mining-plants/</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.trustnodes.com/2020/10/29/iran-changes-law-to-use-bitcoin-for-imports" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.trustnodes.com/2020/10/29/iran-changes-law-to-use-bitcoin-for-imports</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.coindesk.com/russian-oil-drilling-giant-opens-mining-farm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.coindesk.com/russian-oil-drilling-giant-opens-mining-farm</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>
<p>Is there a reason why Bitcoin won't move to ASIC resistant algorithms (aside from the fact that it would require a hard fork)? In other words, do ASIC-prone algorithms fundamentally provide any benefit (in terms of security or scalability) over ASIC resistant algorithms?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One of the drawbacks in using such algorithms is mining by botnets. Exploiting
backdoored machines (So many CPUs online right now are easy targets for hackers and
governments).</p>
<p>Example: <a href="https://www.coindesk.com/botnet-infected-5000-computers-monero-miner" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.coindesk.com/botnet-infected-5000-computers-monero-miner</a></p>
<p>Bitcoin needs hashpower that is relatively stable, focused on bitcoin mining and
secures it for long term.</p>
</li>
</ol>
 41313: <p>The downsides outweigh the upsides: as you mentioned this would require a hard fork, and would leave everyone (not just mining farms) who owns a Bitcoin miner with a very expensive paperweight, and as such it's unlikely a large enough portion of the community is willing to make the change for it to be successful. It would require throwing away a significant amount of infrastructure.</p>
<p>I suppose one day if it were to become a problem where Bitcoin miners are colluding to try and rewrite the blockchain or censor transactions, then we could reevaluate this. However, mining already comes with such razor-thin margins that it is extremely unlikely miners will be throwing away their profits to do this: they would all have to agree to work against their own best interests.</p>
 5406: <p>ASIC-resistance is a mirage. <em>Application Specific Integrated Circuits</em> (ASICs) are made to do one thing only and will always beat general purpose hardware.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;General purpose computational devices like CPUs, GPUs, and even DRAM all make substantial compromises to their true potential in order to be useful for general computation.&quot;<br />
–David Vorick, <a href="https://blog.sia.tech/the-state-of-cryptocurrency-mining-538004a37f9b" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;State of Cryptocurrency Mining&quot;</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>As an &quot;ASIC-resistant&quot; cryptocurrency appreciates in value, eventually someone would find it economically viable to produce an ASIC. Given the high development cost and relatively lower increase in profitability, for an ASIC-resistant algorithm such a market would be even more likely to be dominated by a single producer.</p>
<p>Instead, consider the upsides of an ASIC-friendly hashing algorithm. ASICs beat general purpose hardware by magnitudes which quickly curbed botnets mining with CPU or GPU. As ASICs are the most efficient tools to turn power into security, similar dominance of all available hash rate to Bitcoin's security would take magnitudes more CPUs or GPUs at vastly worse energy efficiency. It's easier for manufacturers to enter the market, which opens production up to more competition. Since the hardware is network specific, miners cannot hop networks to pursue every tiny shift in relative profitability, resulting in a more stable hash rate. Due to the upfront cost of the hardware, miners are—quite literally—invested in the success of the network.</p>
<p>After over a decade, ASICs have caught up to state-of-the-art miniaturization. Product cycles have slowed down. This reduces the advantage of mining operators with close ties to manufacturers, as the longer lifespan of hardware allows it to spread further geographically. When machines run longer, the initial hardware investment is smaller compared to the on-going energy costs which favors locations with cheap electricity. While China does have relatively cheap electricity, there are various regions with stranded energy due to abundant hydro, solar, or geothermal sources all across the globe. While previously most hash rate was situated in China, the recent crackdown on the Bitcoin mining industry there has expedited an already existing downward trend. Hopefully a lot of the currently migrating hash rate will show up in numerous different locales.</p>
<p>Finally, a change of the hashing algorithm would necessarily require a hard fork. Given the doubtful benefits, such a hard fork would be extremely controversial.</p>
