Is a memory-hard proof-of-work scheme necessarily resistant to speedups from custom ASICS?

Background: Bitcoin uses a proof-of-work scheme based on SHA256 hashing. The scheme is compute-bound. Initially, people would mine solutions on their PCs or GPUs. However, eventually it was noticed that a custom ASIC (a custom-designed hardware chip) can compute SHA256 hashes much more rapidly and thus a custom ASIC can mine more efficiently and more rapidly, so people built custom ASICs that can compute SHA256 hashes much faster than any general-purpose CPU. Today ASICs have a 100x advantage over mining on your PC, so PC-based mining is not very competitive.

Some folks have proposed fixing this by designing a memory-hard proof-of-work scheme. A memory-hard scheme is one that fundamentally requires some minimum amount of memory (e.g., 1GB of RAM) to solve efficiently, and where there are no useful time-memory tradeoffs. These are hard to design, but suppose we were able to construct one. For instance, Cuckoo Cycle is one plausible attempt at such a scheme. Suppose we use Cuckoo Cycle, or we find another scheme. I've seen it argued that such a scheme would end the monopoly of ASICs and thus make mining more democratic, because ASICs can speed up computation-bound tasks but not memory-bound tasks.

Here's my question. Is this argument correct? More specifically, is it true that memory-hardness is enough to ensure that ASICs won't have much of an advantage over general-purpose CPUs? What prevents an attacker from building a custom ASIC and buying off-the-shelf DRAM chips, and building systems that pair each ASIC with a DRAM chip?

  • 2
    "What prevents an attacker from building a custom ASIC and buying off-the-shelf DRAM chips, and building systems that pair each ASIC with a DRAM chip?" Ideally that ASIC would be smaller but not faster (sequentially) than a conventional computer. If the relative cost of RAM compared with the CPU is big enough, this advantage would be relatively small. I doubt that this would be ever enough for competitive mining, but might be enough in other applications where small advantages matter less. e.g. some kind of rate limiting or anti-SPAM system. – CodesInChaos Oct 16 '15 at 17:55
  • 1
    I think I saw a discussion on the PHC list that Argon2 may be used for a memory-hard PoW with fast verification... And someone of the Argon2 team posted this. As for the idea that this would make it more "democratic", the first mention of this was in the scrypt paper IIRC. I think your question will be answered by that (at least partly) especially in section 8. – SEJPM Oct 16 '15 at 17:56
  • @CodesInChaos, thanks. Here's my super-crude back-of-the-envelope calculation: a RAM chip costs about \$20; a CPU costs about \$200; so it feels like we're already talking about a potential for a 10x speedup if the cost of the ASIC is as low as \$20 per chip. That sounds like more than a small advantage. Does that sound right? – D.W. Oct 16 '15 at 18:01
  • This question is really not about cryptography but hardware. Close as off-topic? – Guut Boy Sep 5 '16 at 8:32
  • 1
    @GuutBoy: I would say that the design of memory-hard proof of work schemes is on topic here. While it does inevitably have to concern itself more with hardware details than some of the more abstract number-theoretical aspects of cryptography, that does not in itself render it off topic. Besides, there are other subfields of crypto, like side channel attacks, that are just as hardware specific if not more so. – Ilmari Karonen Sep 5 '16 at 20:05

What prevents an attacker from building a custom ASIC and buying off-the-shelf DRAM chips, and building systems that pair each ASIC with a DRAM chip?

DRAM memory is already pretty optimized for random memory accesses per second per dollar. Since a memory bound PoW spends more time waiting for memory than doing computation, there's little point in using an ASIC to speed up the computation. The bottleneck is DRAM latency. The ASIC is just a very expensive way to spend a larger fraction of time waiting for memory...

Also see related discussion at For reference purposes (and in the unlikely case Reddit shuts its doors), here’s a copy of my post there:

hashcash functions must be cheap to verify to achieve their purpose.

And thus memory hardness can only be achieved by going beyond the hashcash proof of work, as I wrote about in “Beyond the Hashcash Proof-of-Work (there’s more to mining than hashing)”, published at

The desirability of a memory hard PoW for a high market cap crypto currency is an open question with no easy answers and one that deserves more study.

I think it could be desirable if it can radically change the economics of mining, to the point where mining is profitable for no one. That means that even the (hypothetically) most energy-efficient ASIC with custom memory technology, would still not have a positive ROI, due to the following reasons:

  1. fabrication costs are going to be much larger than for whatever memory technology is used for commodity computing devices, which still enjoy much larger economies of scale.

  2. electricity costs, while lower than for commodity memory, are unlikely to to be more than an order of magnitude lower.

and the main reason:

  1. huge numbers of people could be willing to mine at a loss, just as they are happy to play the lottery. this requires a very low barrier to entry, like one click to install a mining app on your phone that will make it mine overnight while charging. it helps to know that your mining efficiency is not more than (roughly) an order of magnitude worse than with custom hardware.

Of course I'm not claiming this is a likely scenario, but I think it's at least imaginable...

Another possibility to consider is having 2 PoWs: one compute bound, and one memory bound, splitting the blocks between them. Mining the compute bound one would be (barely) profitable with ASICs, while the mining the memory bound one would be unprofitable, but help decentralization.

Still, unprofitable mining is by no means a requirement for making memory hard PoWs desirable.

It is conceivable that any memory technology developed to make the PoW's memory accesses as energy efficient as possible, will benefit many other classes of computation especially in mobile, solar powered, and other low-powered settings, as thus inevitably lead to commoditization.

This argument works best for PoWs that do as little computation as possible apart from memory accesses, and I believe this is where Cuckoo Cycle's edge trimming shines.

  • I can see why it will always be profitable to do mining where electricity is cheap, but it doesn't seem correct that specialized hardware will always have an advantage. For every algorithm there is theoretically an optimal circuit (or many equally optimal), but some algorithm may be optimal on something that is (negligibly different from) a general purpose CPU. This question is essentially asking whether "memory hard" is a sufficient condition, which I suspect is not true, but cannot prove. – otus Oct 23 '15 at 15:51
  • 1
    Current cheap general purpose CPUs are still rather lacking in their ability to generate as many random memory accesses as an ASIC can. But this may change in the near future as many-core cpu's become commonplace, and even cheaper than the DRAM chips they use. – John Tromp Oct 23 '15 at 16:19

Yes, the argument is largely correct. A good memory-hard proof-of-work scheme can be fairly resistant to speedup using ASIC, if designed around a good primitive like Argon2 and parametrized appropriately; in particular, having a large fraction of its cost spent in un-cacheable accesses to enough memory that DRAM is the only economical choice for that.

The idea with this strategy is that the (hash rate)/(operating cost) ratio of an ASIC cracker can be limited by the DRAM power, and/or its (hash rate)/(building cost) can be limited by DRAM cost. From both standpoints, ASIC-based designs are not much better than their CPU-based counterparts; and we can find plausible bounds on how better ASICs can be.

With suitably large investment, using today's technology, an ideal ASIC design would have the cracker on the same die as the DRAM. This is not far-fetched: there are suppliers for design tools and logic cells using the special cost-optimized process of DRAM. Compared to a cracker using commodity CPU and DRAM, that entirely saves the CPU and interconnect to DRAM, and most of the cost of logic operations (both from the standpoint of power and building), and possibly reduces the time spent in memory accesses by I guess at most 3 binary orders of magnitude due to the combination of lower propagation and logic delays, and optimized choice of DRAM cells (these can be much faster than the ones in mainstream DRAM, but the silicon area and power per cell also increases, evening out things).

All in all, I'd say that the above ASIC design is no more than 16 times more cost-effective than custom boards using commodity CPU and DRAM (in either purchasing or operating cost, ignoring the uncertainties in silicon and energy procurement); and probably much less attractive than that for an adversary with limited investment capability, which realistically will be an important consideration even for a three-letters-agency. That's for a memory-hard entropy-streching function parametrized towards making the cost of memory accesses (rather than logic operations) the limiting factor, and requiring more DRAM than can economically fit SRAM (to be on the safe side, say at least 232 bits, or about half a gigabyte per instance of the function), and with an access pattern to DRAM that defies any caching strategy (one way the later is achieved is by using computed, random-like addresses).

Note: In the above, I use estimations based on DRAM memory accesses because (in my opinion) that gives the tightest bound for the benefit ASICs can hope to achieve compared to more COTS cracker designs. But this is not a recommendation to reduce to the max the number of logic operations in the parametrization of a state-of-the-art memory-hard entropy-streching functions; on the contrary, the sensible thing to do is to pump the memory-related parameters up to the point where that eats say 2/3 of the affordable cost (including using some sizable fraction of a gigabyte per core), then pump the computation-related parameters up to what's affordable; this makes designing an ASIC cracker able to jump over both hurdles less likely.

  • We are power limited; however, we can throw more power at something to double the speed. Since 2007, you can get DRAM on-die instead of cache, and this was done because the throughput of memory busses doubles ~29months, and you needed as much as cache possible to get over the bus constraint. I have found that anything that can be done in a CPU, I can do in an ASIC much, much, faster because I don't have any rules. As an example, I once made a multiplier on 600nm that took 56J/op, whereas a 65nm Cell took 43.1J/op. A good similar example is here: – b degnan Sep 5 '16 at 20:19
  • 1
    @bdegnan: anything computational (with little memory involved) and poorly supported by a CPU, can be achieved on an ASIC much better. An ASIC also expands the realm of what memory activity can fit a cache tailored to the application. However, modern memory-hard entropy-streching or POW functions strive to make memory accesses uncacheable. This is necessary for the reasoning to hold. We want the bootleneck to be memory, size such that DRAM is the only economical choice, and caching not an option. – fgrieu Sep 6 '16 at 10:20
  • I should have been more clear that I was trying to say that I make no differentiation between DRAM and cache. I have seen 4GiB of DRAM that was "on die" (not really, due to through vias). The DRAM constraints are completely a function of architecture as a bus constraint. On die, they are a heat constraint, but by the time you are doing stacked ICs you have already done microfluidics for cooling. If your constraint is DRAM, it's 64-bits per line x 2 channels. I can always use 4, 8, 16 channels if I'm making my own parts. I just don't think you can beat the engineers with math. – b degnan Sep 6 '16 at 10:58
  • Actually, if someone outlined a system, I could pretty much tell you if I could make it, the cost, and the estimated throughput. I looked to see if I could find a system like this outlined, but I couldn't easily find one. I'm more of a hardware implementer of cryptography, and I have yet to learn all of the lingo. – b degnan Sep 6 '16 at 11:05
  • I'm more of a hardware implementer of cryptography, and I have yet to learn all of the lingo. Huh? That makes me wonder how one is able to correctly implement (and/or optimize) crypto in hardware and call himself/herself more of a hardware implementer of cryptography while still having to learn the “lingo” etc. (just saying) – e-sushi Sep 7 '16 at 12:21

Memory-hard proof-of-work: are they ASIC-resistant?

Theoretically, the answer is a clear “no”.

Given enough resources (read: invested time and money) and the appropriate knowledge (ASICs don’t grow on trees, they have to be designed) all currently known and/or published “memory-hard PoW” solutions could be rendered into futile efforts. But theory ends where the real world starts…

More specifically, is it true that memory-hardness is enough to ensure that ASICs won't have much of an advantage over general-purpose CPUs?

Your “feel” seem to be correct, as no memory-hard design has managed “to be enough” to ensure that ASICs won't have much of an advantage over general-purpose CPUs… at least, so far.

What prevents an attacker from building a custom ASIC and buying off-the-shelf DRAM chips, and building systems that pair each ASIC with a DRAM chip?

Allow me to step up my soapbox while I dive into that…

Practically, the real show-stopper for ASICs in the realms of cryptocurrency is and will always be “production cost”. Remember that an ASIC is a dedicated piece of hardware. It only solves a single, specific task and isn't (re)programmable like a personal computer or some handheld device.

Production costs for ASICS can quickly run into a few million Euros/US-Dollars due to things like the design of such ASIC chips, their (clean room) manufacturing, and – last but not least – the low yields that come with ASICs (current industry feedback shows 50% of the manufactured chips don't work and are destroyed instead of being used or sold).

Long story short: to create an ASIC for whatever cryptocurrency, you have to have financial backing and a clear break-even-point within reach. If you don’t have those two corner-stones, memory hardness is the least of your problems and you better go back to your drawing board to rethink your plan.

Getting back to your questions: if we assume that your attacker has access to resources as described above, such an attacker would be able to work his/her way well beyond the limits of a specific “memory-hard” PoW implementation.

The logic question arising out of this (and somewhat implied by your question) is: is memory-hardness “the” solution towards ASIC-resistance? Not really, for reasons of which I only described a few (to prevent this answer from becoming a small book).

Potential solution to the problem…

Besides that, I’ld like to point at the fact that — based on the above – there seems to be a solution to the problem. Yet, it clearly leaves the path of “memory-hard PoW algos”. Nevertheless, I think it should be mentioned in this context: instead of chasing some dragon, one could simply exploit the usual problems faced by attackers by exploiting the amount of resources needed, and pushing things beyond feasability… in this case: economic feasability, by leveraging the break-even-point out of the financial reachability of the opponent.

Keeping in mind that ASICs – once designed and manufactured – can not be recoded, transformed, or otherwise reused, a simple but effective attack vector against such attackers themselves emerges: frequently change the PoW implementations, swapping one algo design for another. To keep up with such changes, an attacker who relies on (let’s just call it) ”the magic of ASICs” would need to restart his/her efforts… over and over again upon each swap of algo designs. This – even theoretically – will quickly become more and more infeasable in several areas (economic, time-factor, etc). In the end, an attacker will have to decide of it makes sense to invest more than the expected return, or giving up the efforts of fighting ever-changing cryptocurrency hashing algos and instead focussing on economically more interesting targets.

Memory-hard PoW may have its place, but currently that’s not the front seat…

I can’t deny this potential solution to the problem could benefit from different memory-hard algo designs as well, as those would change ASIC design requirements even more than usual. Yet, this is a “could” and not a “would”. All in all, memory-hard PoW algos currently don’t provide the amount of protection against ASICs that “marketing speak” tries to sell to cryptocurrency users (incl. miners). Surely, we can’t ignore that algos like Litecoin’s Scrypt and things like cryptonight were able to show it is possible to slow down the birth-rate of leaner and meaner ASICs at least for a few short moments (because they changed the hardware and/or resource requirements via algo-design and -combination).

Yet, up until now, every fixed algo implementation – memory-hard or not – is slowly being rendered void just like some former cryptographically secure things we all used to love: MD5, RC4, and SHA1. Therefore, I’ld say it’s not worth focussing on memory-hardness in relation to PoW.

Instead, memory-hardness should be kept in mind as a potential factor when designing the next hashing implementations… only to be implemented in such a way if it really makes sense. (After all, cryptocurrencies – just like everything else cryptography-related – are also influenced by “implementation speed expectations” as well as considering “resources available to the average, benign users in contrast to potential attackers”.)

Missing proofs, practical disproofs, and the future of it all…

If there were a working memory-hard PoW (in relation to ASIC resistance, providing equal chances when mining et al), you would be looking at a near-to-perfect cryptocurrency. As soon as you see it, feel free to ping me… as far as I can see when looking around, we’re still a few years away from something like that. Chances are, it does’t exist… but we can’t know for sure yet since – up until now – no one was able to prove that; just like no one was able to prove up until today that memory-hard implementations are actually able to successfully prevent ASIC (or FPGA) implementations, or at least pull their effectiveness down to a near-CPU level. Instead of providing the needed/wanted/expected proof, a small truckload of theories and papers have already practically been proven wrong.

Nevertheless, assuming cryptocurrency is here to stay (which the most recent EU tax decisions in relation to cryptocurrencies definitely underlined) we might get to a useable and fair PoW one day… even if there’s a good chance that “memory-hardness” will not be a prime factor of the solution. After all, attackers only get smarter and attacks only get better. The search for better and more flexible solutions to known problems have been ongoing for a pretty long time now (as a random example, see the following paper from 1995: An SRAM-programmable field-configurable memory as well as bordering patents), and might push “memory-hardness” into an abandoned corner unless CPU technology, as well as desktop systems as a while, are able to make some similar jumps forward soon.

Looking at military crypto, it’s a wonder we still tend to rely on CPUs instead of using dedicated ASICs and speedy FPGAs. This especially hits one in the face when thinking about cryptocurrency mining: while PoW resembles a high-speed race with a few sprinkles of luck to go with it, some still seem to hope they’ll win that race against fellow-miners (and potential attackers) while riding a “memory-hard” bicycle. Personally, I sincerely doubt memory-hardness by itself will ever be able to provide the fair chance those people are hoping for.


  • Wouldn't memory hard ASICs simply be adopted by consumers as RAM? – PyRulez Sep 5 '16 at 1:23
  • @PyRulez Not sure if I grasp your comment question… after all, there’s more to memory-hard PoW as well as the world of ASICs than just memory chips. Currently I tend to simply point out that my answer to “Memory-hard PoW: are they ASIC-resistant?” boils down to “theoretically no, but practically yes as long as creating ASICs requires more expensive resources (R&D time, money, etc.) than other systems”. But chances are I might be completely missing your point. A bit of clarification would help me detect if we’re on the same page or if I’m bluntly missing the core of your question. – e-sushi Sep 5 '16 at 1:43
  • the point of memory hard POW is that an ASIC would basically be a memory chip and therefore RAM. – PyRulez Sep 5 '16 at 17:45
  • 1
    @PyRulez I disagree on that one. As said, there’s more to ASICs than just memory chips. Ask yourself: why ignore the potential of optimizing circuits and instead treat an ASIC as if it were nothing more than a block of RAM chips? Fact is, that’s not what “Application-Specific Integrated Circuits” are. Current/modern ASICs often include entire microprocessors, mem blocks (incl. ROM, RAM, EEPROM, flash memory) and other large building blocks. (think: SoC). Maybe it helps when I say: I have yet to meet a RAM chip that can process a HDL on its own. – e-sushi Sep 5 '16 at 18:42
  • [continued] Yet – as my answer explains – that does not mean an ASIC is generally able to ad-hoc blow a consumer desktop system out of the water when talking about memory-hard PoW implementations. But time (read: technological evolution) is your enemy, while algo changes can be easy patches to quick-fix the issue. Anyway, if my comments don’t help understand what I’m pointing at (or talking about), chances are the answer by @fgrieu explains things a bit better for you. He provides a nice, practical view on the things I merely soap-boxed. – e-sushi Sep 5 '16 at 19:10

Your Answer


By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.