1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED8EDB62
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:15:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f48.google.com (mail-vk0-f48.google.com
[209.85.213.48])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD59F1BD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:15:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f48.google.com with SMTP id z204so44406261vkd.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 08:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=0RAMexZ90RqWTksEZBghnB/vIV76ltohg1f/DBK+aSU=;
b=dyUmcmChMtPALSyZWdL4uynAbA0ywUdtvX+GHR3Klep29Qv/pdi7sTgo9PX4hX6ja0
84i5VsDhw5vDEcCsbduP0DnVY8YK2vg4jb4ZcfACQA1aRPUWnpaFuT5Z2nE6x0Qrfkqv
ZE4f8M4mqQSYYbJcDUFyfEdZ6ff8xgpbi2ssonWa9/DourWK8jvJlbzcYBs63lS9Oubk
xzbzmjj9wqSSm0JUMxvqrqwmSs8ZvL0bG+sEUbjrC8IrZDvsfDUTR6o9wcbAtL+OTZl3
QmBZyfUwyMwSrNks0FyKyaWtvTTGt8WT2HpZZMK1ozhtvOS74vVamqLDwNrucAUpCq2/
UptA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=0RAMexZ90RqWTksEZBghnB/vIV76ltohg1f/DBK+aSU=;
b=SXJDQni3Hm8Da2o8WjqGkIodTB4sjhU5lUBb7m/UbP4gkxJCL/zW+ta9NH8AwClnmV
TtyE1H0oA/3pD6xFvReZz7eLSiFIGQci41qzyVk80VQv0VIvsL7UpHtOukkPvOHpWQ8q
h4zwHfoCLZJwlINqfDGJRsBukoxgWI5VrbHWFhElzwErE4+IYzsfhhRbZCJ9JL6tjEaS
BPh/Gaob8nEwHU7YYoIq8Sv6WRCCJyogZM9bH9/PgdI6UKWRQA0Q1mUJmAlFKUtnWJx7
s20nIhxJswez/++fc7PjSj3PTsm5GhjA+Y1HWk0sbcS6I+OlBNwzzTEqm9IvV/vT+jwk
85Rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2jxUmQsuX49Tfewt8DNMad333RIG08dQO9R4V10OWtffiSTrQ/2ag4ihcxYbtguimBA0xKdoWoPHZ+Tw==
X-Received: by 10.31.85.5 with SMTP id j5mr15474712vkb.167.1491491711787; Thu,
06 Apr 2017 08:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.151.136 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <SINPR04MB1949C5A408F7B6EC4D8D298BC20D0@SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAAS2fgR84898xD0nyq7ykJnB7qkdoCJYnFg6z5WZEUu0+-=mMA@mail.gmail.com>
<SINPR04MB19493BB6268FBC75F107C2BAC20D0@SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
<SINPR04MB1949C5A408F7B6EC4D8D298BC20D0@SINPR04MB1949.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:15:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoVVDgwTdfLxmPmhOc4VaRCG+tyYNksnZL3WQ7Up_JsqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luv Khemani <luvb@hotmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the
Bitcoin POW function
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 15:15:14 -0000
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Luv Khemani via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Just to add on to the ethical issue of blocking this.
>
>
> If blocking the covert form of ASICBOOST is seen as unethical, then the same can be said about libsecp256k1, various client optimisations, Compactblocks.
This is simply a non sequitur. These optimizations benefit users. On
the other hand, asicboost doesn't benefit users in any way, it only
benefits some miners if and only if not all miners use it. It
obviously harms the miners that aren't using it by making them less
profitable (maybe to the point that they lose money).
If all miners use it or if no one of them uses it is equivalent from
the point of view of the user. In fact, the very fact of allowing it
makes the network less secure unless every single honest miner uses
it, for an attacker could use it against the network.
Even if asicboost was good for users in any way (which as explained
isn't), this proposal doesn't disable it, only the covert form that
cannot be proven to be used.
Therefore there's no rational arguments to oppose this proposal unless
you are (or are invested in):
A) A Miner currently using the covert form of asicboost.
B) A Miner planning to use the covert form of asicboost soon.
C) An attacker using or planning to use the covert form of asicboost.
> All of which seek to reduce the efficacy of large miners and selfish mining.
Asicboost doesn't seek this and doesn't help with this in any way.
|
