[simias]

As TFA points out no matter how ASIC-resistant you try to make your PoW algorithm you're just delaying the inevitable. If any of these cryptocurrencies actually manages to become the currency of the future the incentive to increase the hash-rate-per-kW by a few percents to be worth it.

Having a pool of different algorithms might improve the difficulty but it will also make it tricky to audit all algorithms for vulnerabilities. On top of that an ASIC might not have to implement all algorithms, they could idle and only spring into action when an algorithm they implement is selected for instance.

The main point of the article stands, no matter how complicated you make your algorithm a special-purpose solution will always be more efficient than a general-purpose one, it's just a matter of balancing the cost of developing the ASIC vs. the expected return.

If, as the article points out, developing chips for minor cryptocurrencies using ASIC-resistant PoW is cost-effective I can't imagine how anybody could hope to design as ASIC-resistant cryptocurrency designed to become the currency of the future. Think about it, in the unlikely scenario where a PoW cryptocoin eventually replaces the dollar the mining rewards will quickly amount to billions of dollars. The incentive to get an edge, no matter how small, would be tremendous.

An alternative scheme would be to change the change the PoW algorithm regularly like the article says Monero is doing, but then you give a huge amount of power to the people selecting the next PoW. Consider how incredibly tempting it would be to develop an ASIC for some PoW algorithm and then have it selected by Monero, you'd have a huge head start.