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
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
|
Return-Path: <opetruzel@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6427279
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Apr 2017 04:47:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com (mail-oi0-f43.google.com
[209.85.218.43])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53A3790
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 6 Apr 2017 04:47:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oi0-f43.google.com with SMTP id r203so38977548oib.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 05 Apr 2017 21:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=skzNi2WutA2a2b+RsiMG+W5ClH7dO/DORYHjro0dL7A=;
b=I4MTMvAJZRnPtv1tOpfDT6R2py1dGnd5Z35lpq9RMhEvgTe4rBi6Ws/0rDXOa67OJW
TUa6FBc5yDe53oHH4xiS5/Lgua3gulnz6ypyUb7wACtR8T1R0P6WpAMXn91KAAqCV6qh
yX1xnQyQ9FJUUuAZFU/CO2q9B4xzucO3SXu4MdhBEY4lM9nZuHA5PmyY0YSWvupwil9u
pGnqupvcylpmvmqttcIE5rSfs5BtjipV2u+SD+jzhFHqyVpZBfT3jTQVjCavu9Ftsark
P6AyBNvBSFjzxcd0Lc/DlBsiKUnw71iUx73OyKqJzrIgDCMq9SQPQTGSRQd8pU4Tjp5U
dYpA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=skzNi2WutA2a2b+RsiMG+W5ClH7dO/DORYHjro0dL7A=;
b=m8RvdfOQgSPfjfRGdT31vC0bhTwJJkWBhreA9i3SUwu5X6LmKGgk5D843Gv3KfGBCH
LydovAbVomwxEZsESVU2keA1miGWhbAN1iRZt5Ocy76nkYVuaf81znn713AoxJ+B/TCg
zy77224pc3Pxw33XabtAvX98bwKk8qVbKw0D4erq54cBbW1wRPtELV4uNsUUGe85R4+5
IngIxxL7gTRwvTafBASiG2gYJ39CallryR1/FwMZn7PAv3jOOofua/XQdXIIEpnoqh02
NKlgfFSQiDwqD+0d79gpKItiLF+3vUC/uK2oFzYAqznHsS7WgvuO4HiIJXq5CWB4ok5Y
Colg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H25LADQIoIu0LS9ODTTyAOTO3mEeEhnwLhwWEWt/0P4SGtLQoKmp3ZCRFWB+h8SI1YDFeKlTSzAaQbhTA==
X-Received: by 10.202.102.140 with SMTP id m12mr17544315oik.116.1491454031241;
Wed, 05 Apr 2017 21:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.19.74 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 21:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Oliver Petruzel <opetruzel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 00:47:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CALhpmH2MdhYgwTB+zZBO7iWQbBLb63E7Yrkj2-NV6KZ35TYP=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140f5a6bb2ba6054c783350
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:09:48 +0000
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 04:47:12 -0000
--001a1140f5a6bb2ba6054c783350
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> > One of the things going for us here is that Bitmain has been keeping
ASICBOOST
> > from their own customers - as far as we know they haven't been sharing
it, and
> > thus they're the only ones you can actually use it.
> >
> > So while we're pissing off Bitmain in disabling it, we wouldn't be
affecting
> > anyone else.
> >
> > Equally, mining is a zero-sum game: if no-one can use ASICBOOST, miners
are in
> > the same position as before. ASICBOOST is only relevant to miners like
Bitmain
> > who have access to it while other miners don't.
Peter -
Do we know that for a fact, though? What evidence or intelligence do we
have to indicate Bitmain itself is the only entity using the covert boost?
A few possibilities:
1. They could have already shared it with a limited number of strategic
partners;
2. They could have offered to share it with various parties in exchange for
something (money, support for BU, etc); or
3. They could provide the custom firmware/software to select parties as a
direct response to this disclosure -- which would enhance their defenses
against a soft fork.
4. They could share the firmware/software with EVERY owner of their
equipment in a last-ditch defense against a soft fork. (after all, some
advantage over other equipment manufacturers is still better than no
advantage, right?)
Assumptions could lead to failure, so these are just some things to keep in
mind.
Respectfully,
Oliver
--001a1140f5a6bb2ba6054c783350
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">> > One of the things going for us here is that Bitm=
ain has been keeping ASICBOOST<br>> > from their own customers - as f=
ar as we know they haven't been sharing it, and<br>> > thus they&=
#39;re the only ones you can actually use it.<br>> ><br>> > So =
while we're pissing off Bitmain in disabling it, we wouldn't be aff=
ecting<br>> > anyone else.<br>> ><br>> > Equally, mining =
is a zero-sum game: if no-one can use ASICBOOST, miners are in<br>> >=
the same position as before. ASICBOOST is only relevant to miners like Bit=
main<br>> > who have access to it while other miners don't.<br><b=
r>Peter -<br>Do we know that for a fact, though? What evidence or intellige=
nce do we have to indicate Bitmain itself is the only entity using the cove=
rt boost?<br><br>A few possibilities: <br>1. They could have already shared=
it with a limited number of strategic partners; <br>2. They could have off=
ered to share it with various parties in exchange for something (money, sup=
port for BU, etc); or <br>3. They could provide the custom firmware/softwar=
e to select parties as a direct response to this disclosure -- which would =
enhance their defenses against a soft fork.<div>4. They could share the fir=
mware/software with EVERY owner of their equipment in a last-ditch defense =
against a soft fork. (after all, some advantage over other equipment manufa=
cturers is still better than no advantage, right?)<br><br>Assumptions could=
lead to failure, so these are just some things to keep in mind.<br><br>Res=
pectfully, <br>Oliver</div></div>
--001a1140f5a6bb2ba6054c783350--
|
