Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant

[Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>]

Yea, I think in any hardfork that we should be talking about, a part of
it should include 1) fix the version field so its a static constant, 2)
the merkle root becomes hash of the real block header 3) swap first 2
bytes of the merkle root with the timestamp's two high-order bits, 4)
swap the next 4 bytes of the merkle root with the difficulty field.

I believe this should be compatible with all existing ASICs, with the
exception, possibly, of some 21 Inc hardware. I believe this fixes
AsicBoost (without thinking about it tooo much, so please critique).

While this is somewhat nasty, the risks of AsicBoost and the precedent
that should be set necessitates a response, and it should be included in
any hardfork.

Matt

On 05/10/16 20:27, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> The various chunks in the double SHA256 are
> 
> Chunk 1: 64 bytes
> version
> previous_block_digest
> merkle_root[31:4]
> 
> Chunk 2: 64 bytes
> merkle_root[3:0]
> nonce
> timestamp
> target
> 
> Chunk 3: 64 bytes
> digest from first sha pass
> 
> Their improvement requires that all data in Chunk 2 is identical except
> for the nonce.  With 4 bytes, the birthday paradox means collisions can
> be found reasonable easily.
> 
> If hard forks are allowed, then moving more of the merkle root into the
> 2nd chunk would make things harder.  The timestamp and target could be
> moved into chunk 1.  This increases the merkle root to 12 bytes in the
> 2nd chunk.  Finding collisions would be made much more difficult.
> 
> If ASIC limitations mean that the nonce must stay where it is, this
> would mean that the merkle root would be split into two pieces.
> 
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> 
>     As part of the hard-fork proposed in the HK agreement(1) we'd like
>     to make the
>     patented AsicBoost optimisation useless, and hopefully make further
>     similar
>     optimizations useless as well.
> 
>     What's the best way to do this? Ideally this would be SPV
>     compatible, but if it
>     requires changes from SPV clients that's ok too. Also the fix this
>     should be
>     compatible with existing mining hardware.
> 
> 
>     1)
>     https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff
> 
>     2)
>     http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-April/012596.html
> 
>     --
>     https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org <http://petertodd.org>
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>