MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <57F195EC.30009@mattcorallo.com>
References: <CAKzdR-pAxs_Gim-aFdjd4eQPY6vWsoEVafYwcjmBjit_dsH_wA@mail.gmail.com>
	<57F18F5A.6010304@mattcorallo.com>
	<CAAS2fgSwgdvb9gWc8A2SPhJAL36Ss4EY_DTtc6sQj=G3X66OWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQ6Xip=6nrdSM82hAhd47CKGPXLCXMOkBohrZWxJyqFoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57F195EC.30009@mattcorallo.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 23:27:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRh1oawCxSnGExyfxjD5fW8L78HtmAxgiNoTqa_cRQu_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] About ASICBoost
Precedence: list

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com> wrote:
> Even if the Bitcoin Foundation decided to recklessly disregard Bitcoin's
> future centralization, I'm not sure going to them and asking them to pay
> a license fee in order to keep from holding the rest of the Bitcoin
> mining community hostage counts as "regard for centralization pressure".
> It also doesn't excuse the lack of transparent licensing being available
> today, or the lack of transparency when discussing it in public after
> the patent had been filed.

We can't change the past (besides, would you want BCF to have owned
that patent? I didn't)-- only the future.

To do so requires collaboration, so lets focus on that.