MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgT8fgwJMAgRBMYft-3MoWPRhu5Kaq7u08AXtnw1Hv=vng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160510185728.GA1149@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CAH6h1Ls_Dh_oBo-fUMoBtwCQ=U3XgBLhbuHvH+ra78bjHYNyXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160511230144.GA5252@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CAAS2fgT8fgwJMAgRBMYft-3MoWPRhu5Kaq7u08AXtnw1Hv=vng@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 21:23:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKkS3nRVanRBtm4gRUvnTqS2Vt0gjsgkpwewEXjJk+zvDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e1ca62634a605329b0217
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant
Precedence: list

--001a113e1ca62634a605329b0217
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Is the design and manufacturing processes for the most power efficient
ASICs otherwise patent unencumbered?  If not, why do we care so much about
this one patent over all the others that stand on the road between pen and
paper computation and thermodynamically ideal computation?

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Secondly, we can probably make the consensus PoW allow blocks to be
> mined using
> > both the existing PoW algorithm, and a very slightly tweaked version
> where
> > implementing AsicBoost gives no advantage. That removes any incentive to
> > implement AsicBoost, without making any hardware obsolete
>
> Taking that a step further, the old POW could continue to be accepted
> but with a 20% target penalty. (or vice versa, with the new POW having
> a 20% target boost.)
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--001a113e1ca62634a605329b0217
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Is the design and manufacturing processes for the most pow=
er efficient ASICs otherwise patent unencumbered?=C2=A0 If not, why do we c=
are so much about this one patent over all the others that stand on the roa=
d between pen and paper computation and thermodynamically ideal computation=
?<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed=
, May 11, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr=
">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_b=
lank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc=
 solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:01 PM,=
 Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev<br>
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; Secondly, we can probably make the consensus PoW allow blocks to be mi=
ned using<br>
&gt; both the existing PoW algorithm, and a very slightly tweaked version w=
here<br>
&gt; implementing AsicBoost gives no advantage. That removes any incentive =
to<br>
&gt; implement AsicBoost, without making any hardware obsolete<br>
<br>
</span>Taking that a step further, the old POW could continue to be accepte=
d<br>
but with a 20% target penalty. (or vice versa, with the new POW having<br>
a 20% target boost.)<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">___________________________________=
____________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a113e1ca62634a605329b0217--