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 5BFC2267 for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 13:09:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yw0-f174.google.com (mail-yw0-f174.google.com [209.85.161.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 571F31B8 for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 13:09:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f174.google.com with SMTP id g133so41668073ywb.2 for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 06:09:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=palatinus-cz.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=b6ELHjDNjAsdGOmpBrLPVgEhRor2YrN6lWVr3Cw/eRU=; b=pyKUefy3/uG3do/LX3pwwEWjEQPfRKXPzZIOt/UCYs/0FnYSF0QbepKnFV1bvpeFGo t3P+lZ61tMMZb25b9JByLS/kPFMqTCEIaNEB7mzBQvhyb91fHXWLLUjT8z9S//NI3ydn YwDJeceGExHnCquH/WvucWu1+0BGdLNBUh9XtMt+Lz/xIy07exNQp9rc9R8MQaUKoijN ZDdLvyFCrFjbiaI9HV9YEzjqn6NlMy2aQdzgiRKO3edQm8z0kUooVjSaDBKI3a4gfa17 Rc8FD2o7KULeBZrNwaWFD+egnh2UMzcViyqL02AmR9wCGTikSx75luouDsmWSJhEOqUg c3OQ== 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:cc; bh=b6ELHjDNjAsdGOmpBrLPVgEhRor2YrN6lWVr3Cw/eRU=; b=by2R+I4a9MY0pdNEJLICpYlQs4zRUZ+iV1Lm2w27R9tBiNAAxAN0jxv6bWV1ZS0jzn oYRWzd8C3KyiwQ3BUHJdnKaZQHqG8Fx4pz92h4G+2Qcc4tO7d9X1LFK1VAymjeLx0BES pDB9fJtvArXm9CWT2EFaCEsTznuPo0d9OeTyb8C5jcip2Sl8O5gYGzYEjnWNTJbAK0zY pO/jefoVAVDiNqhiopzLHB9aM4MSvA7P9mxfXVyuCRs4AoT4zLAzKJiQNTcBVoNb7qCV mlDjDcThLSDtZ2ytSlcjhshYdYz9kdB6I5TPbl5zXl93Ts43mjoLqxRQJylKKh3vCBvm BkQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXd/hecI/ca2P8968uZC66b/pTdLBzIgUwRoh07/1E03jlVtUdBfutyt11L3zJCMpQay1qBtP0BNrZpVA== X-Received: by 10.13.233.68 with SMTP id s65mr1467288ywe.96.1462972166535; Wed, 11 May 2016 06:09:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.13.241.2 with HTTP; Wed, 11 May 2016 06:08:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20160510185728.GA1149@fedora-21-dvm> From: Marek Palatinus Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 15:08:57 +0200 Message-ID: To: Sergio Demian Lerner , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c060c164dc27c053290c06d X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:09:29 -0000 --94eb2c060c164dc27c053290c06d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Ehm, I though those discussions about "ASICs are bad, because X" ended years ago by starting "ASIC unfriendly" altcoins. ASIC industry is twisted even without AsicBoost. I don't see any particular reason why to change rules just because of 10% edge. This is opening Pandora box and it is potentially extremely dangerous for the health of the network. You cannot know in advance what you'll break by changing the rules. Disclaimer: I don't have any stake in any ASIC company/facility. slush On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner < > sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> You can find it here: >> https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/the-re-design-of-the-bitcoin-block-header/ >> >> Basically, the idea is to put in the first 64 bytes a 4 byte hash of the >> second 64-byte chunk. That design also allows increased nonce space in the >> first 64 bytes. >> >> My mistake here. I didn't recalled correctly my own idea. The idea is to > include in the second 64-byte chunk a 4-byte hash of the first chunk, not > the opposite. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --94eb2c060c164dc27c053290c06d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ehm, I though those discussions about "ASICs are bad,= because X" ended years ago by starting "ASIC unfriendly" al= tcoins.=C2=A0ASIC industry is twisted even without AsicBoost. I don't s= ee any particular reason why to change rules just because of 10%=C2=A0edge.=

This is opening Pandora box and it is potentially extre= mely dangerous for the health of the network. You cannot know in advance wh= at you'll break by changing the rules.

Disclai= mer: I don't have any stake in any ASIC company/facility.
slush

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitco= in-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org><= /span> wrote:


On Tue= , May 10, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@g= mail.com> wrote:

Basi= cally, the idea is to put in the first 64 bytes a 4 byte hash of the second= 64-byte chunk. That design also allows increased nonce space in the first = 64 bytes.

My mista= ke here. I didn't recalled correctly my own idea. The idea is to includ= e in the second 64-byte chunk a 4-byte hash of the first chunk, not the opp= osite.


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--94eb2c060c164dc27c053290c06d--