From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F39BA82B for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 01:58:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57CB316F for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 01:58:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2607:fb90:152c:e219:c9be:d0df:b531:6d14] (unknown [172.56.18.195]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 407585FD9C; Thu, 12 May 2016 01:58:42 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: References: <20160510185728.GA1149@fedora-21-dvm> <20160511230144.GA5252@fedora-21-dvm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----J70MDSTATREMF9CIY4HVAEVB5CTSNZ" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Matt Corallo Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 01:58:42 +0000 To: Russell O'Connor , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev Message-ID: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 01:58:44 -0000 ------J70MDSTATREMF9CIY4HVAEVB5CTSNZ Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Aside from patents related to the silicon manufacturing process itself and patents not yet published, yes, the process is unencumbered, and setting the correct precedent (that the community will fight large centralization risks) is important in the first case. Matt On May 11, 2016 9:23:21 PM EDT, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote: >Is the design and manufacturing processes for the most power efficient >ASICs otherwise patent unencumbered? If not, why do we care so much >about >this one patent over all the others that stand on the road between pen >and >paper computation and thermodynamically ideal computation? > >On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < >bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev >> wrote: >> > Secondly, we can probably make the consensus PoW allow blocks to be >> mined using >> > both the existing PoW algorithm, and a very slightly tweaked >version >> where >> > implementing AsicBoost gives no advantage. That removes any >incentive to >> > implement AsicBoost, without making any hardware obsolete >> >> Taking that a step further, the old POW could continue to be accepted >> but with a 20% target penalty. (or vice versa, with the new POW >having >> a 20% target boost.) >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> 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 ------J70MDSTATREMF9CIY4HVAEVB5CTSNZ Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Aside from patents related to the silicon manufacturing process itself and patents not yet published, yes, the process is unencumbered, and setting the correct precedent (that the community will fight large centralization risks) is important in the first case.

Matt

On May 11, 2016 9:23:21 PM EDT, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Is the design and manufacturing processes for the most power efficient ASICs otherwise patent unencumbered?  If not, why do we care so much about this one patent over all the others that stand on the road between pen and paper computation and thermodynamically ideal computation?

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Secondly, we can probably make the consensus PoW allow blocks to be mined using
> both the existing PoW algorithm, and a very slightly tweaked version where
> implementing AsicBoost gives no advantage. That removes any incentive to
> implement AsicBoost, without making any hardware obsolete

Taking that a step further, the old POW could continue to be accepted
but with a 20% target penalty. (or vice versa, with the new POW having
a 20% target boost.)
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
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
------J70MDSTATREMF9CIY4HVAEVB5CTSNZ--