MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161014105757.GA8049@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <CAKzdR-oaqUicPhCjfbyX92odVs9LOzvhUOY6nyd9K2RdC_9b_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20161014105757.GA8049@fedora-21-dvm>
From: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:10:45 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKzdR-pp0K-kqHWBP6A_+Ze0x3Ye5c94M+gz+Tue1Q-v4R5hog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143a4109020c2053ed72716
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] DPL is not only not enough,
 but brings unfounded confidence to Bitcoin users
Precedence: list

--001a1143a4109020c2053ed72716
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Oh God... here we go again..

>
> Again, lets remember that you personally proposed a BIP[1] that had the
> effect
> of aiding your ASICBOOST patent[2] without disclosing that fact in your
> BIP nor
> your pull-req[3].
>
> This is false. The first sentence of the BIP states: "There are incentives
for miners to find cheap, non-standard ways to generate new work which are
not in the best interest of the protocol".

The BIP actually PROTECTS the network from stealth Shared-Nonce mining and
the fact you rejected it made the Bitcoin network LESS secure because now
we just don't know at what extent it is in use.

Shared-nonce mining can be done with or without that BIP/pull-req.

We didn't disclose more in the BIP because it was not clear if shared-nonce
mining (the fact that Bitcoin had a design flaw) would have a negative
affect on Bitcoin price.

ASICBoost patent may be a patent that protects Bitcoiners from mining
centralization: ASICBoost is the only company that at this point showed
interest in licensing the technology. But I do not control ASICBoost nor
the patent so I cannot do anything about it.

I propose we as a community do a crowdfund to try to license it from that
company (or any other that wants to put theirs in the deal) and put all in
public domain.

--001a1143a4109020c2053ed72716
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Oh God... here we go again..<br><div><div class=3D"gmail_e=
xtra"><span class=3D"gmail-"></span><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px sol=
id rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"gmail-"><br>
</span>Again, lets remember that you personally proposed a BIP[1] that had =
the effect<br>
of aiding your ASICBOOST patent[2] without disclosing that fact in your BIP=
 nor<br>
your pull-req[3]. <br>
<br></blockquote><div>This is false. The first sentence of the BIP states: =
&quot;There are incentives for miners to find cheap, non-standard ways to=
=20
generate new work which are not in the best interest of the protocol&quot;.=
=C2=A0 <br></div><div><br>The BIP actually PROTECTS the network from stealt=
h Shared-Nonce mining and the fact you rejected it made the Bitcoin network=
 LESS secure because now we just don&#39;t know at what extent it is in use=
.<br><br></div><div>Shared-nonce mining can be done with or without that BI=
P/pull-req. <br><br>We didn&#39;t disclose more in the BIP because it was n=
ot clear if shared-nonce=20
mining (the fact that Bitcoin had a design flaw) would have a negative=20
affect on Bitcoin price. <br><br>ASICBoost patent may be a patent that prot=
ects Bitcoiners from mining centralization: ASICBoost is the only company t=
hat at this point showed interest in licensing the technology. But I do not=
 control ASICBoost nor the patent so I cannot do anything about it.<br><br>=
I propose we as a community do a crowdfund to try to license it from that c=
ompany (or any other that wants to put theirs in the deal) and put all in p=
ublic domain. <br></div></div></div></div></div>

--001a1143a4109020c2053ed72716--