From: Timo Hanke <timo.hanke@web•de>
To: Marek Palatinus <marek@palatinus•cz>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] AsicBoost
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:58:57 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAH6h1LtZ3_zbiPS4id2yUwm=2M1_qtdaD5Uu2gbhxPGzwZnz1w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJna-Hjx2e-ztyoieVi=MszXwW=Vdt+8NFyCMEdEH+jydoWKPw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2124 bytes --]
Slush,
You can actually detect the use of this improvement by looking at the I/O
of the chip, the I/O of an on-board micro-controller or even at the system
I/O because all the communication including the mining pool protocol is
different.
Timo
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Marek Palatinus <marek@palatinus•cz> wrote:
> To my understanding it is purely software thing. It cannot be detected
> from outside if miner uses this improvement or not. So patenting it is
> worthless.
>
> slush
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Alternatively scenario: it will cause a sudden increase of Bitcoin mines
>> in countries where the algorithm is not patented, possibly causing a
>> geographical decentralization of miners from countries that already have a
>> lot of miners like China (if it is patented in China).
>>
>> On 01/04/16 10:00, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:41:40PM -0700, Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I'd like to announce a white paper that describes a very new and
>> significant algorithmic improvement to the Bitcoin mining process which has
>> never been discussed in public before. The white paper can be found here:
>> http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/~Timo.Hanke/AsicBoostWhitepaperrev5.pdf
>>
>> What steps are you going to take to make sure that this improvement is
>> available to all ASIC designers/mfgs on a equal opportunity basis?
>>
>> The fact that you've chosen to patent this improvement could be a
>> centralization concern depending on the licensing model used. For example, one
>> could imagine a licensing model that gave one manufacture exclusive rights.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing listbitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.orghttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3652 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-08 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-01 4:41 Timo Hanke
2016-04-01 9:00 ` Peter Todd
2016-04-04 23:01 ` Mustafa Al-Bassam
2016-04-06 11:57 ` Marek Palatinus
2016-04-06 12:09 ` Mustafa Al-Bassam
2016-04-08 20:58 ` Timo Hanke [this message]
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='CAH6h1LtZ3_zbiPS4id2yUwm=2M1_qtdaD5Uu2gbhxPGzwZnz1w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=timo.hanke@web$(echo .)de \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=marek@palatinus$(echo .)cz \
/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