MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH6h1Ls_Dh_oBo-fUMoBtwCQ=U3XgBLhbuHvH+ra78bjHYNyXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160510185728.GA1149@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CAH6h1Ls_Dh_oBo-fUMoBtwCQ=U3XgBLhbuHvH+ra78bjHYNyXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 16:07:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpW5K9Y8LFO79RJJS_qgnL-wyc+b1UC+RSaKMrk31fB_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Timo Hanke <timo.hanke@web.de>,
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c04796ebfb9d90532918f3e
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant
Precedence: list

--94eb2c04796ebfb9d90532918f3e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On May 11, 2016 05:15, "Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Again: this is unlike the hypothetical persistence of two chains after a
hardfork that is only contentious but doesn=E2=80=99t change the mining alg=
orithm,
the kind of hardfork you are proposing would guarantee the persistence of
two chains.

If all users abandon the old rules, why would asicboost miners continue to
spend energy on a chain that everybody else is ignoring?

> To be more precise, if you change the block validation ruleset R to block
validation ruleset S you have to make sure that every hardware that was
capable of mining R-valid blocks is also capable of mining S-valid blocks.

Why?
No, this proposal, for example, may make patented asicboost hardware
obsolete.
I don't accept this claim as true, this is just your opinion.

>
> The only way out is to go the exact opposite way and to embrace as many
optimizations as possible to the point where there are no more
optimizations left to do, or hopefully getting very close to that point.

What do you mean by "embrace" in the context of a patented optimization
that one miner can prevent the rest from using?

--94eb2c04796ebfb9d90532918f3e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On May 11, 2016 05:15, &quot;Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Again: this is unlike the hypothetical persistence of two chains after=
 a hardfork that is only contentious but doesn=E2=80=99t change the mining =
algorithm, the kind of hardfork you are proposing would guarantee the persi=
stence of two chains.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">If all users abandon the old rules, why would asicboost mine=
rs continue to spend energy on a chain that everybody else is ignoring?</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; To be more precise, if you change the block validation =
ruleset R to block validation ruleset S you have to make sure that every ha=
rdware that was capable of mining R-valid blocks is also capable of mining =
S-valid blocks.=C2=A0</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Why?<br>
No, this proposal, for example, may make patented asicboost hardware obsole=
te.<br>
I don&#39;t accept this claim as true, this is just your opinion.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt;<br>
&gt; The only way out is to go the exact opposite way and to embrace as man=
y optimizations as possible to the point where there are no more optimizati=
ons left to do, or hopefully getting very close to that point.=C2=A0</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">What do you mean by &quot;embrace&quot; in the context of a =
patented optimization that one miner can prevent the rest from using?<br>
</p>

--94eb2c04796ebfb9d90532918f3e--