MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F5F02B94-E094-4C16-80B6-8B0876E423E4@toom.im>
References: <CAAS2fgR84898xD0nyq7ykJnB7qkdoCJYnFg6z5WZEUu0+-=mMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170406023123.GA1071@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CA+KqGkqSxeAUZFVFqM_QkEWcGFHgZXwGuOE==7HpXp1+D_Tj3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170406024910.GA1271@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CAFVRnyrqiNY_JOqhv2ysm2WsBMYsU3tTAASAtHzMbA68_9Yx8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<F5F02B94-E094-4C16-80B6-8B0876E423E4@toom.im>
From: Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:31:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD1TkXsJ0QdVtirx77Hyup7qEDz+aSSSkkDt6HrXzZ_sD8Jxag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the
 Bitcoin POW function
Precedence: list

To me, all of these miss the main objection.  If a miner found an
optimization and kept it for themselves, that's their prerogative.
But if that optimization also happens to directly discourage the
growth and improvement of the protocol in many unforseen ways, and it
also encourages the miner to include fewer transactions per block,
that directly hurts Bitcoin and its future.  Something should clearly
be done about it when the latter is at issue.  I agree with you that
the former is a relative nonissue.

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Ethically, this situation has some similarities to the DAO fork. We have =
an entity who closely examined the code, found an unintended characteristic=
 of that code, and made use of that characteristic in order to gain tens of=
 millions of dollars. Now that developers are aware of it, they want to mod=
ify the code in order to negate as much of the gains as possible.
>
> There are differences, too, of course: the DAO attacker was explicitly ma=
licious and stole Ether from others, whereas Bitmain is just optimizing the=
ir hardware better than anyone else and better than some of us think they s=
hould be allowed to.
>
> In both cases, developers are proposing that the developers and a majorit=
y of users collude to reduce the wealth of a single entity by altering the =
blockchain rules.
>
> In the case of the DAO fork, users were stealing back stolen funds, but t=
hat justification doesn't apply in this case. On the other hand, in this ca=
se we're talking about causing someone a loss by reducing the value of hard=
ware investments rather than forcibly taking back their coins, which is les=
s direct and maybe more justifiable.
>
> While I don't like patented mining algorithms, I also don't like the idea=
 of playing Calvin Ball on the blockchain. Rule changes should not be emplo=
yed as a means of disempowering and empoverishing particular entities witho=
ut very good reason. Whether patenting a mining optimization qualifies as g=
ood reason is questionable.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>