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
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
|
Return-Path: <jaejoon@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5D0EB5D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Apr 2017 02:46:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wr0-f172.google.com (mail-wr0-f172.google.com
[209.85.128.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14E5DF5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 8 Apr 2017 02:46:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wr0-f172.google.com with SMTP id g19so75180226wrb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 19:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=MyFqjnM/tFsyyq3f07tI6nPa5ul+YjUfolDJXwI18iU=;
b=HsoyxQxRAmqbkZkcak4wSCCDZhruJjyYH2VTwgZHOOSUxzdEdF2qAfv4ZgbXCa/Nrp
hjtGYLSb67hvIr7hqB85aYaLess/h/w0+JhKMT6piDSe+/6zBbGrNr4Ip1wbnI8eMdOu
Lwmrp7bUWOVP8gbw/vcDS4pywjvPNsjHEzpthIUGfnoolU7fYDeT27zNHVEoNefRTxW1
2KEuNkEgT9gvDLhyrUIILU8Xxjuex10ZX1IAOx/h4MqJlgFh7fflzyRNPhkQtkr8Jd2y
8nisoqC+kmyL/lyBP+0iYxfnSEOsnqLyeFVaKkmOiJP6oOg/O3X9b5uB2JFztI5Eo9bs
rkEg==
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:cc;
bh=MyFqjnM/tFsyyq3f07tI6nPa5ul+YjUfolDJXwI18iU=;
b=LtoZc3zbG8Wlx5+2h5Myu1IixJ4pWhGlZLTc/jZCctSkyVnD02k6lCazGOq7I05e8U
Z0HHBDm4o2mbBaX8qK4K7L7Jahz8P+Q4lYV6thxGfRKjD/c7S4mnPsUPgDep4sASm15n
fWDfyKokg2gCYJUX1OoK2VP98GYDM3DqovbwBXotZlp3J94PjML/fK2S5SSThePPZm3J
H6OEYaqTWYZ7ThJBmzPry1NZaIQDvEoKH1agmH9UU86956AD/6x63m2oElRqDByfa9WB
2GJ5tqHeMplbPtuJvD+Kkl/9ds03xD+kQ2h1ka1Nn0Az7K9AKv6geUnaY0rjSO0OFRnU
oXMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2R1xcPFnVrPXpr5h8KZ2Q6q1x5WJ7/zVTG9PeELcCf7ALMF6ACa9I/R+V3vdGLsB71Toir51Xn4AsBgQ==
X-Received: by 10.223.142.45 with SMTP id n42mr14136616wrb.131.1491619589665;
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 19:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.134.243 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 19:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Cwhn7YzwaDUZtOygDAgrU1UXjRPG-EiH3Fyz2c95gqOpNnNbiYL1NvhS28yK5wLJCnIqDaBrM6c574dY-O6_-bRjLIFmDe2NCxIuyV1w2dw=@protonmail.com>
References: <CAJR7vkpRhNsQsem-nFkeubX04xx1y7aHwCENfg0d1266oOsXMw@mail.gmail.com>
<Cwhn7YzwaDUZtOygDAgrU1UXjRPG-EiH3Fyz2c95gqOpNnNbiYL1NvhS28yK5wLJCnIqDaBrM6c574dY-O6_-bRjLIFmDe2NCxIuyV1w2dw=@protonmail.com>
From: Jimmy Song <jaejoon@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 21:46:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJR7vkoq8Y_-fbdxN=--gF5wrGByr5oODc4FkTaCEvDSuP0whQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: praxeology_guy <praxeology_guy@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045f56e2c83be8054c9ebf22
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: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 03:05:54 +0000
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit
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: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 02:46:31 -0000
--f403045f56e2c83be8054c9ebf22
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Praxeology Guy,
Why would the actual end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short term
> owners of bitcoins) who run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitcoin
> policy in order to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack?
>
Certainly, if only one company made use of the extra nonce space, they
would have an advantage. But think of it this way, if some newer ASIC
optimization comes up, would you rather have a non-ASICBoosted hash rate to
defend with or an ASICBoosted hash rate? Certainly, the latter, being
higher will secure the Bitcoin network better against newer optimizations.
> If anything, we would be making policy changes to prevent the use of
> patented PoW algorithms instead of making changes to enable them.
>
Is that patented in any jurisdiction, all jurisdictions or only certain
jurisdictions? Would a patent granted for SHA256 in Swaziland be sufficient
for Bitcoin to change the Proof of Work algorithm? This is a very
subjective judgment based on quasi-legality and I don't think that's a road
that Bitcoin should go down.
Certainly, it would be better if the patent for ASICBoost were
open-sourced, but the legality of such-and-such thing in such-and-such
jurisdiction should not affect Bitcoin policy as that in itself introduces
significant risk to the network. A sufficiently authoritarian government
can then grant a monopoly for various algorithms in their country and
negatively impact Bitcoin.
Indeed, there are already many individuals that disobey the laws of their
country to help the Bitcoin network run. I would expect the same with
patents. Should there come a time when a patent or some other legal
maneuvering gives one network actor a large advantage to the detriment of
the network, I believe that Bitcoin will handle that in the specific case.
In the meantime, I believe such changes increase the odds of Segwit
actually being accepted and activated as per BIP-141.
--f403045f56e2c83be8054c9ebf22
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Praxeology Guy,</div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1=
ex"><div>Why would the actual end users of Bitcoin (the long term and short=
term owners of bitcoins) who run fully verifying nodes want to change Bitc=
oin policy in order to make their money more vulnerable to 51% attack?</div=
></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Certainly, if only one company made use o=
f the extra nonce space, they would have an advantage. But think of it this=
way, if some newer ASIC optimization comes up, would you rather have a non=
-ASICBoosted hash rate to defend with or an ASICBoosted hash rate? Certainl=
y, the latter, being higher will secure the Bitcoin network better against =
newer optimizations.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><=
div></div><div>If anything, we would be making policy changes to prevent th=
e use of patented PoW algorithms instead of making changes to enable them.<=
br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Is that patented in any jurisdict=
ion, all jurisdictions or only certain jurisdictions? Would a patent grante=
d for SHA256 in Swaziland be sufficient for Bitcoin to change the Proof of =
Work algorithm? This is a very subjective judgment based on quasi-legality =
and I don't think that's a road that Bitcoin should go down.</div><=
div><br></div><div>Certainly, it would be better if the patent for ASICBoos=
t were open-sourced, but the legality of such-and-such thing in such-and-su=
ch jurisdiction should not affect Bitcoin policy as that in itself introduc=
es significant risk to the network. A sufficiently authoritarian government=
can then grant a monopoly for various algorithms in their country and nega=
tively impact Bitcoin.</div><div><br></div><div>Indeed, there are already m=
any individuals that disobey the laws of their country to help the Bitcoin =
network run. I would expect the same with patents. Should there come a time=
when a patent or some other legal maneuvering gives one network actor a la=
rge advantage to the detriment of the network, I believe that Bitcoin will =
handle that in the specific case.</div><div><br></div><div>In the meantime,=
I believe such changes increase the odds of Segwit actually being accepted=
and activated as per BIP-141.</div></div></div></div>
--f403045f56e2c83be8054c9ebf22--
|
