From: Timo Hanke <timo.hanke@web•de>
To: Jannes Faber <jannes.faber@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 15:42:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAH6h1LuemHi1Z8REhZRywghaLjAzy1e1LeHxVdA7iBifGnLnJA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABeL=0ih+BB+AKO6uJRCDGZoVo5is4+GBUfQAJkE48Pd_4vzOQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3250 bytes --]
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Jannes Faber <jannes.faber@gmail•com>
wrote:
> On 11 May 2016 at 12:36, Henning Kopp <henning.kopp@uni-ulm•de> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:21:10AM +0200, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev
>> wrote:
>> > On 11 May 2016 at 05:14, Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev <
>> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > There is no way to tell from a block if it was mined with AsicBoost or
>> > > not. So you don’t know what percentage of the hashrate uses AsicBoost
>> at
>> > > any point in time. How can you risk forking that percentage out? Note
>> that
>> > > this would be a GUARANTEED chain fork. Meaning that after you change
>> the
>> > > block mining algorithm some percentage of hardware will no longer be
>> able
>> > > to produce valid blocks. That hardware cannot “switch over” to the
>> majority
>> > > chain even if it wanted to. Hence you are guaranteed to have two
>> > > co-existing bitcoin blockchains afterwards.
>> > >
>> > > Again: this is unlike the hypothetical persistence of two chains
>> after a
>> > > hardfork that is only contentious but doesn’t change the mining
>> algorithm,
>> > > the kind of hardfork you are proposing would guarantee the
>> persistence of
>> > > two chains.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Assuming AsicBoost miners are in the minority, their chain will
>> constantly
>> > get overtaken. So it will not be one endless hard fork as you claim, but
>> > rather AsicBoost blocks will continue to be ignored (orphaned) until
>> they
>> > stop making them.
>>
>> At least until a difficulty adjustment on the AsicBoost chain takes
>> place. From that point on, both chains, the AsicBoost one and the
>> forked one will grow approximately at the same speed.
>>
>>
> No: you are still assuming AsicBoost miners would reject normal blocks.
> They don't now and they would have to specifically code for that as a reply
> to AsicBoost being banned. So there won't be two chains at all, only the
> main chain with a lot (more than usual) of short (few blocks) forks. Each
> forks starts anew, it's not one long fork. Therefore there is no
> "difficulty adjustment on the AiscBoost chain".
>
> Now if they do decide to ban non-AsicBoost blocks as a response to being
> banned themselves, they're just another altcoin with a different PoW and no
> one would have a reason to use them over Bitcoin (apart from maybe selling
> those forked coins asap).
>
This is what I meant. If existing hardware gets forked-out it will
inevitably lead to the creation of an altcoin. Simply because the hardware
exists and can't be used for anything else both chains will survive. I was
only comparing the situation to a contentious hardfork that does not fork
out any hardware. If the latter one is suspected to lead to the permanent
existence of two chains then a hardfork that forks out hardware is even
more likely to do so (I claim it's guaranteed).
> You're confused about what "longest" means as well: it's not just the
> number of blocks, it's the aggregate difficulty that counts: so AsicBoost
> would never become "longer" (more total work) either.
>
> Hope this helps clear things up.
>
> --
> Jannes
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4469 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-11 22:42 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
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 [this message]
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=CAH6h1LuemHi1Z8REhZRywghaLjAzy1e1LeHxVdA7iBifGnLnJA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=timo.hanke@web$(echo .)de \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jannes.faber@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