<p>I’m going to focus on Bitcoin, because altcoin development is not on-topic here. The block interval is unrelated to the proof of work function, a hard fork could change the hash function, the block interval, or both. This topic’s  question post appears to be based on misconceptions about the way Bitcoin works, e.g:</p>
<ul>
<li>SHA-256 is a simple, memory-light hash function. This makes it ASIC-friendly. That is good for <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/101785/5406">fostering competition among ASIC producers</a>.</li>
<li>The block interval is a <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/1863/5406">security parameter</a> set at the system level that is entirely unrelated to the runtime of SHA-256.</li>
<li><a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/331/5406">Proof of work is not wasteful</a>.</li>
<li>Without the difficulty adjusting to the amount of work done by the network, the block interval would shrink as more hash power comes online which would cause the rate of stale blocks to increase and <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/113505/5406">advantage larger miners</a>.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-16T13:46:31.230Z
2024-07-16T13:46:31.230Z
Murch
<p><strong>Do you think it could be interesting use a faster alternative Hash function for mining while proposing other form of difficulty mechanism ?</strong></p>
<p>I would like to extend the question not only to bitcoin, but to a potential new cryptocurrrency.</p>
<p>What if we found a faster hash function than SHA-256 used by bitcoin in Mining,  which properties are secure in the context of Proof of Work( Ex: Keccak).
It could improve the speed of block's validation in the network but the difficulty mechanism would compensate this scenario improving the difficulty so we do not get an advantage.</p>
<p>The proposition of a new difficulty mechanism that not only depends directly of hashrate(10 min creation of blocks) could be the solution to use a faster hash function and reach improvements in terms of velocity, energy consumption.</p>
<p>Is it really important what Hash function you use? assuming security in their properties. And what about if you could propose a difficulty mechanism that won't increment necessarily the difficulty related to Hashrate</p>
<p>What do you think? Do you have any ideas how modify this difficulty mechanism?</p>

<hash><difficulty><proof-of-work><asic>
Proposing faster hash function for mining and modified difficulty to get more speed and less consumption
holyfloat
# Proposing faster hash function for mining and modified difficulty to get more speed and less consumption

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-07-13)

**Do you think it could be interesting use a faster alternative Hash function for mining while proposing other form of difficulty mechanism ?**

I would like to extend the question not only to bitcoin, but to a potential new cryptocurrrency.

What if we found a faster hash function than SHA-256 used by bitcoin in Mining, which properties are secure in the context of Proof of Work( Ex: Keccak).
It could improve the speed of block's validation in the network but the difficulty mechanism would compensate this scenario improving the difficulty so we do not get an advantage.

The proposition of a new difficulty mechanism that not only depends directly of hashrate(10 min creation of blocks) could be the solution to use a faster hash function and reach improvements in terms of velocity, energy consumption.

Is it really important what Hash function you use? assuming security in their properties. And what about if you could propose a difficulty mechanism that won't increment necessarily the difficulty related to Hashrate

What do you think? Do you have any ideas how modify this difficulty mechanism?

**Tags:** hash, difficulty, proof-of-work, asic


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2024-07-16. Score: 1

I’m going to focus on Bitcoin, because altcoin development is not on-topic here. The block interval is unrelated to the proof of work function, a hard fork could change the hash function, the block interval, or both. This topic’s question post appears to be based on misconceptions about the way Bitcoin works, e.g:

* SHA-256 is a simple, memory-light hash function. This makes it ASIC-friendly. That is good for [fostering competition among ASIC producers](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/101785/5406).
* The block interval is a [security parameter](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/1863/5406) set at the system level that is entirely unrelated to the runtime of SHA-256.
* [Proof of work is not wasteful](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/331/5406).
* Without the difficulty adjusting to the amount of work done by the network, the block interval would shrink as more hash power comes online which would cause the rate of stale blocks to increase and [advantage larger miners](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/113505/5406).


---

