From: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail•com>
To: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom•im>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:04:16 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFVRnyrmWvCJ2B9LjLwL6GoqkVJNaMpxD+3Nv9JMCXW3DRE-tg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F5F02B94-E094-4C16-80B6-8B0876E423E4@toom.im>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3494 bytes --]
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Ethically, this situation has some similarities to the DAO fork. We have
> an entity who closely examined the code, found an unintended characteristic
> of that code, and made use of that characteristic in order to gain tens of
> millions of dollars. Now that developers are aware of it, they want to
> modify the code in order to negate as much of the gains as possible.
>
> There are differences, too, of course: the DAO attacker was explicitly
> malicious and stole Ether from others, whereas Bitmain is just optimizing
> their hardware better than anyone else and better than some of us think
> they should be allowed to.
>
> In both cases, developers are proposing that the developers and a majority
> of users collude to reduce the wealth of a single entity by altering the
> blockchain rules.
>
> In the case of the DAO fork, users were stealing back stolen funds, but
> that justification doesn't apply in this case. On the other hand, in this
> case we're talking about causing someone a loss by reducing the value of
> hardware investments rather than forcibly taking back their coins, which is
> less direct and maybe more justifiable.
>
> While I don't like patented mining algorithms, I also don't like the idea
> of playing Calvin Ball on the blockchain. Rule changes should not be
> employed as a means of disempowering and empoverishing particular entities
> without very good reason. Whether patenting a mining optimization qualifies
> as good reason is questionable.
>
Bitmain is blocking protocol upgrades to preserve their mining advantage.
This is quite distinct from someone taking advantage of a visibly broken
and highly toxic smart contract to net themselves tens of millions of
dollars. Further, Bitmain is performing a patented hardware optimization.
The patents mean that other miners are unable to capitalize on these
optimizations. These optimizations are to the tune of 30%. If you give one
player in the mining industry a permanent 30% cost advantage they will
eventually own everything. It's an industry where margins tend towards zero.
The asicboost patent is a direct threat to the health of the Bitcoin
ecosystem, and now we have visible proof. The war against segwit and the
strife with Bitcoin Unlimited was very damaging to the ecosystem, damaging
to the price, and holding back significant improvements and upgrades to the
Bitcoin protocol. I interpret this as a direct attack on the Bitcoin
ecosystem.
I don't know if changing the rules to nullify asicboost is the right move.
I'm sure this won't be the last patent that causes damage to the ecosystem.
But you need to recognize that the issue is not that Bitmain ran a hardware
optimization. It's that hardware optimizations exist which directly inhibit
upgrading the protocol. And it's that hardware optimizations exist
encumbered by patents enough to give one party a decisive advantage in
mining, decisive enough for them to build a single, centralized monopoly.
Each problem is separate, and each problem is significant, and each problem
is fundamental. The DAO attack was a one-time bout of stupidity that
threatened a fixed amount of money. asicboost is an ongoing status that
directly damages Bitcoin's ability to upgrade, and directly damage
Bitcoin's ability to retain any modicum of decentralization in the
hashrate. The DAO issue did neither of these things for ethereum.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3939 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-06 12:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-05 21:37 Gregory Maxwell
2017-04-05 23:05 ` theymos
2017-04-06 0:17 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-04-06 0:39 ` Joseph Poon
2017-04-06 0:40 ` Joseph Poon
2017-04-06 1:32 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-04-06 2:09 ` Joseph Poon
2017-04-05 23:25 ` Anthony Towns
2017-04-05 23:42 ` Joseph Poon
2017-04-06 2:10 ` Jonathan Toomim
2017-04-06 20:21 ` Jared Lee Richardson
2017-04-06 2:31 ` Peter Todd
2017-04-06 2:39 ` Bram Cohen
2017-04-06 2:49 ` Peter Todd
2017-04-06 3:11 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-04-06 3:23 ` Peter Todd
2017-04-06 3:23 ` David Vorick
2017-04-06 3:42 ` Peter Todd
2017-04-06 5:46 ` Thomas Daede
2017-04-06 6:24 ` Jonathan Toomim
2017-04-06 12:04 ` David Vorick [this message]
[not found] ` <CAMZUoK=oDAD9nhFAHkgncWtYxjBNh3qXbUffOH57QMnqjhmN6g@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAMZUoKn8tr3LGbks0TnaCx9NTP6MZUzQ8PE6jDq1xiqpYyYwow@mail.gmail.com>
2017-04-06 13:55 ` Russell O'Connor
2017-04-06 16:49 ` Marco
2017-04-06 17:04 ` Alex Mizrahi
2017-04-06 17:13 ` Alex Mizrahi
2017-04-07 12:59 ` Jannes Faber
2017-04-07 13:28 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-04-06 17:31 ` Jared Lee Richardson
2017-04-06 17:26 ` Jared Lee Richardson
2017-04-06 15:36 ` Alex Mizrahi
2017-04-06 17:51 ` Jorge Timón
2017-04-06 7:24 ` bfd
2017-04-06 9:17 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-04-06 12:02 ` Luv Khemani
2017-04-06 12:11 ` Bryan Bishop
2017-04-06 17:43 ` Timo Hanke
2017-04-06 12:30 ` Luv Khemani
2017-04-06 15:15 ` Jorge Timón
2017-04-06 15:41 ` Daniel Robinson
2017-04-06 16:13 ` Andreas Schildbach
2017-04-06 21:38 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-04-06 4:47 Oliver Petruzel
2017-04-06 4:49 Raystonn .
2017-04-06 7:47 ` praxeology_guy
2017-04-06 12:13 ` David Vorick
2017-04-07 1:34 Daniele Pinna
2017-04-07 6:46 ` Emilian Ursu
2017-04-07 7:44 ` Alex Mizrahi
2017-04-07 8:08 ` praxeology_guy
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=CAFVRnyrmWvCJ2B9LjLwL6GoqkVJNaMpxD+3Nv9JMCXW3DRE-tg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=david.vorick@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=j@toom$(echo .)im \
/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