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 B8DEF948 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 19:36:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yw0-f178.google.com (mail-yw0-f178.google.com [209.85.161.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 260B1A7 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 19:36:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f178.google.com with SMTP id i129so97310401ywb.0 for ; Sun, 02 Oct 2016 12:36:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=rTO/WT/f1q3RTakSM8qpQMPhaiAt9RqkhiUz5gF2kts=; b=qk66UAvIgkpJLeiAD75ZpXUmvrM+lM7251QvQw6VbNC7gvC4MaScRpurBOPUz+3mui wtqxlegagRx4rWMTvcdG0FQDSSNA8BgdHBRX7wdLapWghqIo2nkgOXinJE5+YgKqYAbF U4GQztEmZI6PvWiGgpzOdFGPqOtRVq6Wrp7SZTPw8qQKiuDVzhCBHqj6rDpPfxoooU1d Xbnkb9+0rd6wyEeZ7HtMKObjoJZgQ0GobnTUCaBu5mzIAyaSONaDDX3McYj6vwxUEpAa bQ49hm1blIMNC+OHMEGQ85YtDu+m2KfWEAquoUonekyelz0AqTLjZctaPKxDnd7EVfwU bg2Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=rTO/WT/f1q3RTakSM8qpQMPhaiAt9RqkhiUz5gF2kts=; b=XICV+5/d/r0swwkKILhnIGcNyQG2s8kBU8+HMruk1gPyeQJ2f/eaMW8oDkeic6R9cT D+TBYumuvs3lfi5DRRlbYS0MxE6yikYhZQzoLlULlT9kEN8EDULeKxOSepVdeeWa45Ed UJYwBtQ1ksheiciEXfQBIIJHsJQDXVfeFc3N1X2mcY3ccj1veJ2aO7o4CLW4L6WKTSZw ih0DNAlZclZfEZqoqy2fJ/OuY8VF1kTzCPEho7L+1/3k10H13zGosaje71hlcLZ9/9+h rZ57RPTuVOS2nuuavI8snaRZ18YKV2z/fhxkX5dTRP6uQ4k9dv1EiOxHfobFXY9vM1YR bOkg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmIihb23lWgeHuaqfEautu0j1FO3tuH1qcmV1+uZmQnNzzdUvSfQd6xrFQcpqiZ2wkb2/osVdN5CL7xKA== X-Received: by 10.13.202.79 with SMTP id m76mr4926968ywd.251.1475436986421; Sun, 02 Oct 2016 12:36:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.129.167.71 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 12:36:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Btc Drak Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 20:36:06 +0100 Message-ID: To: Sergio Demian Lerner , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HK_RANDOM_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 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: Sun, 02 Oct 2016 19:38:26 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] About ASICBoost 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: Sun, 02 Oct 2016 19:36:27 -0000 Sergio, It is critically important to the future of Bitcoin that consensus code avoid any unnecessary entanglements with patents because "the free market" allows you and anyone else to make consensus change proposals that rely on (unknown) patents - but this is something we should all be working to avoid, as it unnecessarily hinders Bitcoin development and everyone's ability to deploy. Consensus code must not be hindered by patents and Bitcoin should retain its permissionless qualities. When you proposed the extra nonce space BIP [1], you had already applied for your ASICBOOST patent [2] without disclosure in the BIP [1] nor in your Bitcoin Core pull request #5102 [2]. The ASICBOOST patent [2] describes the same process as in the BIP [1] and proposed code [3] "As we explained in our Provisional Application, it has been proposed to partition the 4-byte Version field in the block header (see, Fig. 6) and use, e.g., the high 2-byte portion as additional nonce range." Today when you proposed a new sidechain BIP [4], Peter Todd was (rightly) concerned about the prior lack of disclosure of your patents related to your prior consensus modification proposal. Hence the concern is that this might be happening this time as well. There is no evidence that any of the other filers for the ASICBOOST-like patents by mining companies other than your own were going to be using it offensively as those other companies appeared to understand the decentralization risk of having an advantage enforced by legal and not technical means. It's great that you have now committed to looking into the Defensive Patent License. This seems likely to mitigate some of the patent concerns. Although it would be a show of good faith if you also agreed to license ASICBOOST under the DPL. [1]: BIP: https://github.com/BlockheaderNonce2/bitcoin/wiki [2]: ASICBOOST PATENT https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015077378A1?cl=en [3]: Extra nonce pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5102 [4]: COUNT_ACKS [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-October/013174.html On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Please Peter Todd explain here all what you want to say about a patent of a > hardware design for an ASIC. > > Remember that ASICBoost is not the only patent out there, there are at least > three similar patents, filed by major Bitcoin ASIC manufacturers in three > different countries, on similar technologies. > > That suggest that the problem is not ASICBoot's: you cannot blame any > company from doing lawful commerce in a FREE MARKET. > > It is a flaw in Bitcoin design that could be corrected if the guidelines I > posted in [1] had been followed. > > [1] > https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/the-re-design-of-the-bitcoin-block-header/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >