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 CDDA7BDF for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:31:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com [209.85.213.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA900164 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:31:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id d188so48339267vka.0 for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 10:31:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FFfjuZtTa7rPGcRyfACKGEFYF9X+RO+NPg6LV/BgbCY=; b=QvlgCF5W/cjl5jdJw4NU4wHoaFJP/ZxLKd/kg2Y4lIZG4SeTE+njyaiQpm3kFhjzsa bQrmGzr8rgMuZwXGJjUHHQPiOeTAPBFz+y5fIn4gq56aYhTSQz3x+iz2GO8rHDBkqUhT S+SaHGg4wcqScxvFKYAn/Jz6+mGis8s1T1xj6uoRBNkfNht4W8UTDlFQWrzk/LnwnAkR w9M9HKIDrJzzHUJdw7P8F8umRYkvfo+DvC49pzXAOaR5guf/OvpKGVWK0t5EdzZRtOzw vC85d0eVPpHoIrEGV91U5iqxFPwoN+mnJU4ljIqx3kn/VyUMtr6ZDXj7ruWZ4TvzS7HQ r5TA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FFfjuZtTa7rPGcRyfACKGEFYF9X+RO+NPg6LV/BgbCY=; b=C/fkEUK1lrH14hnk5z0hglX7dZJ7HYMWJcIIn4b8RcnWJWna+x/1MHsJEWqqen8BtV cjQkOjASu6tIanR1v7tcqJ5nU2FJftNuyJOjfqppmE1O6KyUDhAYhjUKNGyb0d22/DIx 70R5buRxfwFhrDGOPIC/dtfwih46ziOG7RNnMCLn8E9CKJz16/onLcVw2bG1KwNzyPs5 1LH071xPRK4IyUHFbT0kj/qSxq2BTQarwtyMiPNwDsdPJFUiXMyAUAE2kdg/vwcp+Bcx 7tLJjK/9aFtAvH73LwEEnx/iNL03HDJIa0uTiFvb/Cg381Q3G8LR2vTUFZ4UYOlB9v68 DLTw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3EN84rXr6vOTh4Y7CZvRgb1BEetXiuPejtkLBLCeTWaUfxeUKFGKZ6iNVTMrVuTV1WyscUpqEPncOzyA== X-Received: by 10.31.92.69 with SMTP id q66mr15494395vkb.119.1491499874673; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 10:31:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.157.143 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:31:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20170406023123.GA1071@savin.petertodd.org> <20170406024910.GA1271@savin.petertodd.org> From: Jared Lee Richardson Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:31:13 -0700 Message-ID: To: Jonathan Toomim , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:34:38 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function 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, 06 Apr 2017 17:31:16 -0000 To me, all of these miss the main objection. If a miner found an optimization and kept it for themselves, that's their prerogative. But if that optimization also happens to directly discourage the growth and improvement of the protocol in many unforseen ways, and it also encourages the miner to include fewer transactions per block, that directly hurts Bitcoin and its future. Something should clearly be done about it when the latter is at issue. I agree with you that the former is a relative nonissue. On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev 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 mod= ify the code in order to negate as much of the gains as possible. > > There are differences, too, of course: the DAO attacker was explicitly ma= licious and stole Ether from others, whereas Bitmain is just optimizing the= ir hardware better than anyone else and better than some of us think they s= hould be allowed to. > > In both cases, developers are proposing that the developers and a majorit= y 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 t= hat justification doesn't apply in this case. On the other hand, in this ca= se we're talking about causing someone a loss by reducing the value of hard= ware investments rather than forcibly taking back their coins, which is les= s 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 emplo= yed as a means of disempowering and empoverishing particular entities witho= ut very good reason. Whether patenting a mining optimization qualifies as g= ood reason is questionable. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >