MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKn8tr3LGbks0TnaCx9NTP6MZUzQ8PE6jDq1xiqpYyYwow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgR84898xD0nyq7ykJnB7qkdoCJYnFg6z5WZEUu0+-=mMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170406023123.GA1071@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CA+KqGkqSxeAUZFVFqM_QkEWcGFHgZXwGuOE==7HpXp1+D_Tj3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170406024910.GA1271@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CAFVRnyrqiNY_JOqhv2ysm2WsBMYsU3tTAASAtHzMbA68_9Yx8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<F5F02B94-E094-4C16-80B6-8B0876E423E4@toom.im>
	<CAMZUoK=oDAD9nhFAHkgncWtYxjBNh3qXbUffOH57QMnqjhmN6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMZUoKn8tr3LGbks0TnaCx9NTP6MZUzQ8PE6jDq1xiqpYyYwow@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:55:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKkXMffG1RFT3398zcBN3EmwgPLXm2egeUTqO7ELn7BnsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c03eda2ce3a6a054c7fdcfb
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the
 Bitcoin POW function
Precedence: list

--94eb2c03eda2ce3a6a054c7fdcfb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Jonathan,

The proposal raised here does not deny miners the ability to use ASICBOOST.
Miners can still use overt ASICBOOST by version bit fiddling and get the
same power savings.  In fact, overt ASICBOOST is much easier to implement
than covert ASICBOOST, so I don't really understand what the objection is.


On Apr 6, 2017 13:44, "Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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

--94eb2c03eda2ce3a6a054c7fdcfb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div>Hi Jonathan,<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"=
auto">The proposal raised here does not deny miners the ability to use ASIC=
BOOST. Miners can still use overt ASICBOOST by version bit fiddling and get=
 the same power savings.=C2=A0 In fact, overt ASICBOOST is much easier to i=
mplement than covert ASICBOOST, so I don&#39;t really understand what the o=
bjection is.</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote">On Apr 6, 2017 13:44, &quot;Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote clas=
s=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex">Ethically, this situation has some similarities to the DAO fork. W=
e have an entity who closely examined the code, found an unintended charact=
eristic 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.<br=
>
<br>
There are differences, too, of course: the DAO attacker was explicitly mali=
cious and stole Ether from others, whereas Bitmain is just optimizing their=
 hardware better than anyone else and better than some of us think they sho=
uld be allowed to.<br>
<br>
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 bl=
ockchain rules.<br>
<br>
In the case of the DAO fork, users were stealing back stolen funds, but tha=
t justification doesn&#39;t apply in this case. On the other hand, in this =
case we&#39;re talking about causing someone a loss by reducing the value o=
f hardware investments rather than forcibly taking back their coins, which =
is less direct and maybe more justifiable.<br>
<br>
While I don&#39;t like patented mining algorithms, I also don&#39;t like th=
e 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 qualifie=
s as good reason is questionable.<br>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>

--94eb2c03eda2ce3a6a054c7fdcfb--