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 AE72287A for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:55:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com (mail-vk0-f43.google.com [209.85.213.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 023ABFF for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:55:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id d188so40884382vka.0 for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 06:55:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blockstream-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=83QWtXnEpbqAt4ctnb++h8JuufVA1ygqZIDEHSTHfrs=; b=gjbjmrIp/dQoYnRr+KZzmgVL1mCEC3mpooYKlxxN+iV4HXNg/bdD63AE5XMPPbyGc7 tPQjZAB/I6/265qyIixKJcROKAPw3Upa7o96ce2rzBiOOt4Fb47xe9KG8tC10UcqE8y7 TmVyyHVssnI5PIp9axncYy2XjpiJ2w4meNFSBi4PqHtCZf2XrJ8dOAUmgW0EcESZZvs0 E/11enT0vA4aAF5ZGwA8ivBjq2RkknY0TnGFZxc4H2FM/lRScK8uLtoJQMI/bryYfPCK iyR9a41tXHOSgft00wbBBOH7tzLT2k5pEyBdOuhzg6JYoP7HYvu60/EmB7ELZKJFan7K xrwQ== 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; bh=83QWtXnEpbqAt4ctnb++h8JuufVA1ygqZIDEHSTHfrs=; b=FzZeIPddBAVaRPwBLmIu4PukB5mYtRsfAVlfniMBDtl9yoYLmThV6e8Jx7K1HLV6XC fpmiER4aHuLlhO5ZSU/GkuvAhpjC7hrqfKrZ3Y023DEIhRPy2+M8PxoOEbWlz1KJjBtw ZGjMGIh/Au4j4nnrIQCFuCXeYPuz6NIL7wQ+JVSpp3bfe/MK9WrgNZ5mllznM/xtXxOy wMxA8YzCdXFFSlv0ReMnjteyP2fBDumaiEqiiad6F+ua1JXadxTHwaUEWPViDNsICRVy TbFAe8mxN1d6FH0Axs8JIefHR+cgVKfMTMwKSvIbHIi7FI5QnXVLTwI8Bz2b7YJuhPR3 88gw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1PQFDm4UcaL67jEJ3qbe55GmGvElPU+a6WX7Ub7U8Uf1imt5a4/rsjyadtlhUxgPYNlVxDiSOSolI/4hFe X-Received: by 10.159.55.234 with SMTP id q97mr15851769uaq.115.1491486932608; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 06:55:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.91.202 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.91.202 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:55:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20170406023123.GA1071@savin.petertodd.org> <20170406024910.GA1271@savin.petertodd.org> From: "Russell O'Connor" Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:55:31 -0400 Message-ID: To: Jonathan Toomim , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c03eda2ce3a6a054c7fdcfb 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] 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 13:55:34 -0000 --94eb2c03eda2ce3a6a054c7fdcfb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Jonathan, The proposal raised here does not deny miners the ability to use ASICBOOST. Miners can still use overt ASICBOOST by version bit fiddling and get the same power savings. In fact, overt ASICBOOST is much easier to implement than covert ASICBOOST, so I don't really understand what the objection is. On Apr 6, 2017 13:44, "Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 modify the code in order to negate as much of the gains as possible. There are differences, too, of course: the DAO attacker was explicitly malicious and stole Ether from others, whereas Bitmain is just optimizing their hardware better than anyone else and better than some of us think they should be allowed to. In both cases, developers are proposing that the developers and a majority 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 that justification doesn't apply in this case. On the other hand, in this case we're talking about causing someone a loss by reducing the value of hardware investments rather than forcibly taking back their coins, which is less 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 employed as a means of disempowering and empoverishing particular entities without very good reason. Whether patenting a mining optimization qualifies as good reason is questionable. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --94eb2c03eda2ce3a6a054c7fdcfb Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Jonathan,

The proposal raised here does not deny miners the ability to use ASIC= BOOST. Miners can still use overt ASICBOOST by version bit fiddling and get= the same power savings.=C2=A0 In fact, overt ASICBOOST is much easier to i= mplement than covert ASICBOOST, so I don't really understand what the o= bjection is.


On Apr 6, 2017 13:44, "Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev" <= bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Ethically, this situation has some similarities to the DAO fork. W= e have an entity who closely examined the code, found an unintended charact= eristic 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 modify the code in order to negate as much of the gains as possible.
There are differences, too, of course: the DAO attacker was explicitly mali= cious and stole Ether from others, whereas Bitmain is just optimizing their= hardware better than anyone else and better than some of us think they sho= uld be allowed to.

In both cases, developers are proposing that the developers and a majority = of users collude to reduce the wealth of a single entity by altering the bl= ockchain rules.

In the case of the DAO fork, users were stealing back stolen funds, but tha= t justification doesn't apply in this case. On the other hand, in this = case we're talking about causing someone a loss by reducing the value o= f hardware investments rather than forcibly taking back their coins, which = is less direct and maybe more justifiable.

While I don't like patented mining algorithms, I also don't like th= e idea of playing Calvin Ball on the blockchain. Rule changes should not be= employed as a means of disempowering and empoverishing particular entities= without very good reason. Whether patenting a mining optimization qualifie= s as good reason is questionable.

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


--94eb2c03eda2ce3a6a054c7fdcfb--