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 A5D0EB5D for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 02:46:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr0-f172.google.com (mail-wr0-f172.google.com [209.85.128.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14E5DF5 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 02:46:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f172.google.com with SMTP id g19so75180226wrb.0 for ; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 19:46:30 -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 :cc; bh=MyFqjnM/tFsyyq3f07tI6nPa5ul+YjUfolDJXwI18iU=; b=HsoyxQxRAmqbkZkcak4wSCCDZhruJjyYH2VTwgZHOOSUxzdEdF2qAfv4ZgbXCa/Nrp hjtGYLSb67hvIr7hqB85aYaLess/h/w0+JhKMT6piDSe+/6zBbGrNr4Ip1wbnI8eMdOu Lwmrp7bUWOVP8gbw/vcDS4pywjvPNsjHEzpthIUGfnoolU7fYDeT27zNHVEoNefRTxW1 2KEuNkEgT9gvDLhyrUIILU8Xxjuex10ZX1IAOx/h4MqJlgFh7fflzyRNPhkQtkr8Jd2y 8nisoqC+kmyL/lyBP+0iYxfnSEOsnqLyeFVaKkmOiJP6oOg/O3X9b5uB2JFztI5Eo9bs rkEg== 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:cc; bh=MyFqjnM/tFsyyq3f07tI6nPa5ul+YjUfolDJXwI18iU=; b=LtoZc3zbG8Wlx5+2h5Myu1IixJ4pWhGlZLTc/jZCctSkyVnD02k6lCazGOq7I05e8U Z0HHBDm4o2mbBaX8qK4K7L7Jahz8P+Q4lYV6thxGfRKjD/c7S4mnPsUPgDep4sASm15n fWDfyKokg2gCYJUX1OoK2VP98GYDM3DqovbwBXotZlp3J94PjML/fK2S5SSThePPZm3J H6OEYaqTWYZ7ThJBmzPry1NZaIQDvEoKH1agmH9UU86956AD/6x63m2oElRqDByfa9WB 2GJ5tqHeMplbPtuJvD+Kkl/9ds03xD+kQ2h1ka1Nn0Az7K9AKv6geUnaY0rjSO0OFRnU oXMg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2R1xcPFnVrPXpr5h8KZ2Q6q1x5WJ7/zVTG9PeELcCf7ALMF6ACa9I/R+V3vdGLsB71Toir51Xn4AsBgQ== X-Received: by 10.223.142.45 with SMTP id n42mr14136616wrb.131.1491619589665; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 19:46:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.134.243 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 19:46:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jimmy Song Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 21:46:29 -0500 Message-ID: To: praxeology_guy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045f56e2c83be8054c9ebf22 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, 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: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 03:05:54 +0000 Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit 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: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 02:46:31 -0000 --f403045f56e2c83be8054c9ebf22 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Praxeology Guy, Why would the actual end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term > owners of bitcoins) who run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin > policy in order to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack? > Certainly, if only one company made use of the extra nonce space, they would have an advantage. But think of it this way, if some newer ASIC optimization comes up, would you rather have a non-ASICBoosted hash rate to defend with or an ASICBoosted hash rate? Certainly, the latter, being higher will secure the Bitcoin network better against newer optimizations. > If anything, we would be making policy changes to prevent the use of > patented PoW algorithms instead of making changes to enable them. > Is that patented in any jurisdiction, all jurisdictions or only certain jurisdictions? Would a patent granted for SHA256 in Swaziland be sufficient for Bitcoin to change the Proof of Work algorithm? This is a very subjective judgment based on quasi-legality and I don't think that's a road that Bitcoin should go down. Certainly, it would be better if the patent for ASICBoost were open-sourced, but the legality of such-and-such thing in such-and-such jurisdiction should not affect Bitcoin policy as that in itself introduces significant risk to the network. A sufficiently authoritarian government can then grant a monopoly for various algorithms in their country and negatively impact Bitcoin. Indeed, there are already many individuals that disobey the laws of their country to help the Bitcoin network run. I would expect the same with patents. Should there come a time when a patent or some other legal maneuvering gives one network actor a large advantage to the detriment of the network, I believe that Bitcoin will handle that in the specific case. In the meantime, I believe such changes increase the odds of Segwit actually being accepted and activated as per BIP-141. --f403045f56e2c83be8054c9ebf22 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Praxeology Guy,

Why would the actual end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short= term owners of bitcoins) who run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitc= oin policy in order to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack?

Certainly, if only one company made use o= f the extra nonce space, they would have an advantage. But think of it this= way, if some newer ASIC optimization comes up, would you rather have a non= -ASICBoosted hash rate to defend with or an ASICBoosted hash rate? Certainl= y, the latter, being higher will secure the Bitcoin network better against = newer optimizations.
=C2=A0
<= div>
If anything, we would be making policy changes to prevent th= e use of patented PoW algorithms instead of making changes to enable them.<= br>

Is that patented in any jurisdict= ion, all jurisdictions or only certain jurisdictions? Would a patent grante= d for SHA256 in Swaziland be sufficient for Bitcoin to change the Proof of = Work algorithm? This is a very subjective judgment based on quasi-legality = and I don't think that's a road that Bitcoin should go down.
<= div>
Certainly, it would be better if the patent for ASICBoos= t were open-sourced, but the legality of such-and-such thing in such-and-su= ch jurisdiction should not affect Bitcoin policy as that in itself introduc= es significant risk to the network. A sufficiently authoritarian government= can then grant a monopoly for various algorithms in their country and nega= tively impact Bitcoin.

Indeed, there are already m= any individuals that disobey the laws of their country to help the Bitcoin = network run. I would expect the same with patents. Should there come a time= when a patent or some other legal maneuvering gives one network actor a la= rge advantage to the detriment of the network, I believe that Bitcoin will = handle that in the specific case.

In the meantime,= I believe such changes increase the odds of Segwit actually being accepted= and activated as per BIP-141.
--f403045f56e2c83be8054c9ebf22--