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 A8ED9B1E for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:57:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:07:52 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx2.mailbox.org (mx2.mailbox.org [80.241.60.215]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69D1B16A for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:57:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [80.241.60.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08E454586D; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:49:24 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org ([80.241.60.240]) by spamfilter02.heinlein-hosting.de (spamfilter02.heinlein-hosting.de [80.241.56.116]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id QWtdykyMI8WB; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:49:19 +0200 (CEST) To: Jonathan Toomim , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <20170406023123.GA1071@savin.petertodd.org> <20170406024910.GA1271@savin.petertodd.org> From: Marco Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:49:13 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0911F20F9B0EA975A39710ED" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham 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 16:58:48 +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 16:57:19 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0911F20F9B0EA975A39710ED Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 04/06/2017 03:24 AM, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Ethically, this situation has some similarities to the DAO fork. We hav= e an entity who closely examined the code, found an unintended characteri= stic of that code, and made use of that characteristic in order to gain t= ens of millions of dollars. Now that developers are aware of it, they wan= t 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 major= ity 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 thi= s case we're talking about causing someone a loss by reducing the value o= f hardware investments rather than forcibly taking back their coins, whic= h is less direct and maybe more justifiable. > > While I don't like patented mining algorithms, I also don't like the id= ea of playing Calvin Ball on the blockchain. Rule changes should not be e= mployed as a means of disempowering and empoverishing particular entities= without very good reason. Whether patenting a mining optimization qualif= ies as good reason is questionable. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev Quite different in that the DAO fork was about an application level bug and this current proposal is about a possibly dangerous incentive at protocol level. In the first, a protocol change was called to recover funds lost for an application level bug. In the latter, a protocol change is being called to address a perceived incentive problem in the protocol. A good comparison would be if a protocol level change was being proposed for a case like mt gox. But it's not. Plus... This proposal only addresses one covert asicboost and not other overt forms. Even though we may, as well, have good reasons to block other overt forms= =2E Marco Agner https://www.agner.io --------------0911F20F9B0EA975A39710ED Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 04/06/2017 03:24 AM, 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 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
Quite different in that the DAO fork was about an application level bug and this current proposal is about a possibly dangerous incentive at protocol level.
In the first, a protocol change was called to recover funds lost for an application level bug. In the latter, a protocol change is being called to address a perceived incentive problem in the protocol.

A good comparison would be if a protocol level change was being proposed for a case like mt gox. But it's not.

Plus... This proposal only addresses one covert asicboost and not other overt forms.
Even though we may, as well, have good reasons to block other overt forms.
 
Marco Agner
https://www.agner.io
--------------0911F20F9B0EA975A39710ED--