Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5B31902 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:41:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f173.google.com (mail-qt0-f173.google.com [209.85.216.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A461127 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:41:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f173.google.com with SMTP id i34so39501180qtc.0 for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 08:41:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=u5pVbH0Q7tRkMAIsi5IWHj4zXkrH1exfuRTMpCxCSS0=; b=LqHEXwDgLTBXw0vRNyojqezyVQBBgYKdODa/sC1w1bS/nWxTXICZZMGmJ5+39t0bxE qHHAoMDptJEAjwTEx5wf9aqHLbjo9lX88mjjLXYxahPa81VRA/KLIx9CnV0v+nVr8hS1 l3PhO7XMF19ws/pGQMWB4mphsGta6meRz4d0+2veOASGF+2mH/ZByRuj14HhQf65H6av 9+KtF68lwtXzdTeTj+8UKKZZru7KjVF09ykamIykN/5NJ7egYWXRyukm/QFibWc/3Tje QziFB/Z6EBmRWLKq4XsxmQT6d8T+8AowXpAws1t2S1QNGrW3ey7tGuAgfwgbRtH7KUis aEXA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=u5pVbH0Q7tRkMAIsi5IWHj4zXkrH1exfuRTMpCxCSS0=; b=IhWM5wG7hGRfI2gusjx8vrZJZKkCN1p0V9V5RUz35f8B8aArojXtoTEW7SHQqJy1vQ g7blm458XjF8dCYFr9fkDGp2S/kUgvv85n6T90FM8FXin1Jg0t4EOPeo4RDQFG4CF/oB mxfNMiTM3GT7UuHViGB4SRX3cvpzxO3N9i5lITZkPB7Zqyi4uMlurvjvuoWxyt1j/nB/ Co9MYk/VMX4HhXkc/3XBbSo/gUu33gXdK4UpUrwRUPrlbNqfiO6cBurt/tI/X/whwCg0 Ae7lxM49pJsiJtHHxRJ10x0G5Ybx6aF27FNjBBUz/M2np0G6lR061VmPBPOG1FYhG3o4 h8YA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2V1/UcnAWqZE11wbQlpSc2AwXLAqkwZQtZE3OQNdgTWD7KWtN6FcRDw2Rbk0mAxPrqbErffOuilCzPIA== X-Received: by 10.200.2.175 with SMTP id p47mr37284527qtg.35.1491493304302; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 08:41:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Daniel Robinson Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 15:41:32 +0000 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Luv Khemani Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f4030435b620968c48054c815873 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,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 15:46:35 +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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 15:41:45 -0000 --f4030435b620968c48054c815873 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think you're misreading Luv. He's defending the idea of blocking covert ASICBOOST, not defending ASICBOOST. On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 11:16 AM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Luv Khemani via bitcoin-dev > 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. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --f4030435b620968c48054c815873 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think you're misreading Luv. He's defending the = idea of blocking=C2=A0covert ASICBOOST, not defending ASICBOOST.

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 11:16 AM Jo= rge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Luv Khem= ani 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 th= e same can be said about libsecp256k1, various client optimisations, Compac= tblocks.

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<= br class=3D"gmail_msg"> 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 m= ining.

Asicboost doesn't seek this and doesn't help with this in any way.<= br class=3D"gmail_msg"> _______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linu= xfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--f4030435b620968c48054c815873--