Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C296EA85 for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:09:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from science.musalbas.com (science.musalbas.com [195.154.112.130]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 775F516A for ; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:09:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.7.0.6] (unknown [10.7.0.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by science.musalbas.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E97126A0995; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:09:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=musalbas.com; s=mail; t=1459944575; bh=MIBQOIyyl44VWYaVn9Q6A1gQ2QT1pPNZ1t1dT5YJax4=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=nN7l0BE3tEfm3YwCGNoRWJkrdLfqrRWh5nBx7dKQLyMwSuzhgqMdCk+1/SD4iXwiT tSCeOufOkM//9EJOg4ggjJXypZFpV+2D0z5rydOYS+DIArwlzyw1Z6C2S9/JkrZFp3 pgS/fgaU765jUa5fzOLemoOiHRmB3k+NuXWh1+4U= To: Marek Palatinus References: <20160401090050.GA24677@savin.petertodd.org> <5702F257.6010700@musalbas.com> From: Mustafa Al-Bassam Message-ID: <5704FC7D.6020508@musalbas.com> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:09:33 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000003050106050802000900" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:00:07 +0000 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] AsicBoost X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 12:09:38 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000003050106050802000900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It will prevent companies from legally selling mining rigs with the improvement, which stems access to the improvement in patented countries. Or miners can export rigs with the improvement from companies that sell it in non-patented countries. It is not purely a software thing - it is intended to be used by modifying hardware. From the paper: "The performance gain is achieved through a high-=C2=ADlevel optimization of the Bitcoin mining algorithm w= hich allows for drastic reduction in gate count on the mining chip. AsicBoost is applicable to all types of mining hardware and chip designs." Ultimately though, I think you're right in that Bitcoin's mining and decentralized design combined with an international economy makes patenting mining algorithms effectively pointless. Mustafa On 06/04/16 12:57, Marek Palatinus wrote: > To my understanding it is purely software thing. It cannot be detected > from outside if miner uses this improvement or not. So patenting it is > worthless. > > slush > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > Alternatively scenario: it will cause a sudden increase of Bitcoin > mines in countries where the algorithm is not patented, possibly > causing a geographical decentralization of miners from countries > that already have a lot of miners like China (if it is patented in > China). > > On 01/04/16 10:00, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:41:40PM -0700, Timo Hanke via bitcoin-d= ev wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> I'd like to announce a white paper that describes a very new and >>> significant algorithmic improvement to the Bitcoin mining process= which has >>> never been discussed in public before. The white paper can be fou= nd here: >>> >>> http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/~Timo.Hanke/AsicBoostWhitepaperrev= 5.pdf >>> >> What steps are you going to take to make sure that this improvemen= t is >> available to all ASIC designers/mfgs on a equal opportunity basis?= >> >> The fact that you've chosen to patent this improvement could be a >> centralization concern depending on the licensing model used. For = example, one >> could imagine a licensing model that gave one manufacture exclusiv= e rights. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --------------000003050106050802000900 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit It will prevent companies from legally selling mining rigs with the improvement, which stems access to the improvement in patented countries. Or miners can export rigs with the improvement from companies that sell it in non-patented countries.

It is not purely a software thing - it is intended to be used by modifying hardware. From the paper: "The performance gain is achieved through a high-­level optimization of the Bitcoin mining algorithm which allows for drastic reduction in gate count on the mining chip. AsicBoost is applicable to all types of mining hardware and chip designs."

Ultimately though, I think you're right in that Bitcoin's mining and decentralized design combined with an international economy makes patenting mining algorithms effectively pointless.

Mustafa

On 06/04/16 12:57, Marek Palatinus wrote:
To my understanding it is purely software thing. It cannot be detected from outside if miner uses this improvement or not. So patenting it is worthless.

slush

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Alternatively scenario: it will cause a sudden increase of Bitcoin mines in countries where the algorithm is not patented, possibly causing a geographical decentralization of miners from countries that already have a lot of miners like China (if it is patented in China).

On 01/04/16 10:00, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
 
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:41:40PM -0700, Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev wrote:

Hi.

I'd like to announce a white paper that describes a very new and
significant algorithmic improvement to the Bitcoin mining process which has
never been discussed in public before. The white paper can be found here:

http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/~Timo.Hanke/AsicBoostWhitepaperrev5.pdf

What steps are you going to take to make sure that this improvement is
available to all ASIC designers/mfgs on a equal opportunity basis?

The fact that you've chosen to patent this improvement could be a
centralization concern depending on the licensing model used. For example, one
could imagine a licensing model that gave one manufacture exclusive rights.




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


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



--------------000003050106050802000900--