From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Jimmy Song <jaejoon@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:05:09 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAJR7vkpRhNsQsem-nFkeubX04xx1y7aHwCENfg0d1266oOsXMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201704081459.13185.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAJR7vkp4XCzqp-Lw4T_ssV8ZW0vgto62x7ee3PHzyZfAuK_=9w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJR7vkp4XCzqp-Lw4T_ssV8ZW0vgto62x7ee3PHzyZfAuK_=9w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201704081605.10175.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit
Precedence: list

On Saturday, April 08, 2017 3:17:47 PM Jimmy Song wrote:
> Overt ASICBoost is allowed on the network already. Until a proposal
> explicitly blocking overt ASICBoost as a soft fork is activated, this seems
> to be better than the current state which is that overt ASICBoost is
> allowed, but at a cost to BIP9 signals.

No, it isn't allowed right now. Doing it wouldn't invalidate blocks, but it 
would clearly be an attack on the network and cause harm. The same as if 
miners were to maliciously mine only empty blocks.

Luke