From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com>
To: Marek Palatinus <marek@palatinus•cz>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 21:01:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57339DC5.7060704@mattcorallo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJna-HjM-4D4EXMkeSSquRT3r0TMWd+zL8ZRZZ5iQfesqZdB2g@mail.gmail.com>
Indeed, I think the "ASICs are bad, because 1-CPU-1-vote" arguments
mostly died out long ago, and, indeed, the goal that many making those
arguments had of building "unoptimizeable" ASICs failed with them.
I think everyone understands that there will always be some ability to
iterate on ASIC designs, however, a patented optimization breaks that
assumption. Instead of being freely able to optimize their ASIC design,
patented optimizations require that people who discover such
optimizations themselves do not use them, giving one
manufacturer/licenser a huge influence in who is successful in a market
that we're all relying on remaining rather flat. Indeed, with AsicBoost,
we saw Spondoolies independently discover the same optimization, but
with the current legal system they would not have been able to sell such
systems without licensing AsicBoost.
Matt
On 05/11/16 13:08, Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Ehm, I though those discussions about "ASICs are bad, because X" ended
> years ago by starting "ASIC unfriendly" altcoins. ASIC industry is
> twisted even without AsicBoost. I don't see any particular reason why to
> change rules just because of 10% edge.
>
> This is opening Pandora box and it is potentially extremely dangerous
> for the health of the network. You cannot know in advance what you'll
> break by changing the rules.
>
> Disclaimer: I don't have any stake in any ASIC company/facility.
>
> slush
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner
> <sergio.d.lerner@gmail•com <mailto:sergio.d.lerner@gmail•com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> You can find it here:
> https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/the-re-design-of-the-bitcoin-block-header/
>
> Basically, the idea is to put in the first 64 bytes a 4 byte
> hash of the second 64-byte chunk. That design also allows
> increased nonce space in the first 64 bytes.
>
> My mistake here. I didn't recalled correctly my own idea. The idea
> is to include in the second 64-byte chunk a 4-byte hash of the first
> chunk, not the opposite.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-11 21:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-10 18:57 Peter Todd
2016-05-10 20:27 ` Tier Nolan
2016-05-10 21:35 ` Matt Corallo
2016-05-10 21:43 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2016-05-10 22:59 ` Matt Corallo
2016-05-11 12:20 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2016-05-11 13:08 ` Marek Palatinus
2016-05-11 21:01 ` Matt Corallo [this message]
2016-05-11 22:16 ` Simon Liu
2016-05-11 22:50 ` Peter Todd
2016-05-11 14:28 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-05-11 16:24 ` Timo Hanke
2016-05-11 18:28 ` Timo Hanke
2016-05-11 22:49 ` Timo Hanke
2016-05-12 2:27 ` Tom Harding
2016-05-12 2:31 ` Allen Piscitello
2016-05-12 2:33 ` Peter Todd
2016-05-12 4:01 ` Tom Harding
2016-05-10 21:49 ` Marco Pontello
2016-05-10 22:17 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2016-05-10 22:27 ` Chris Riley
2016-05-11 3:14 ` Timo Hanke
2016-05-11 9:21 ` Jannes Faber
2016-05-11 10:36 ` Henning Kopp
2016-05-11 10:47 ` Jannes Faber
2016-05-11 22:42 ` Timo Hanke
2016-05-11 22:58 ` Gregory Maxwell
2016-05-12 7:29 ` Tom
2016-05-12 11:05 ` Jorge Timón
2016-05-11 14:07 ` Jorge Timón
2016-05-11 14:18 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2016-05-11 14:30 ` Jannes Faber
2016-05-11 20:50 ` Matt Corallo
2016-05-11 22:00 ` James Hilliard
2016-05-11 23:01 ` Peter Todd
2016-05-12 0:02 ` Gregory Maxwell
2016-05-12 1:23 ` Russell O'Connor
2016-05-12 1:58 ` Peter Todd
2016-05-12 1:58 ` Matt Corallo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=57339DC5.7060704@mattcorallo.com \
--to=lf-lists@mattcorallo$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=marek@palatinus$(echo .)cz \
--cc=sergio.d.lerner@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox