MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+KqGkqSxeAUZFVFqM_QkEWcGFHgZXwGuOE==7HpXp1+D_Tj3Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgR84898xD0nyq7ykJnB7qkdoCJYnFg6z5WZEUu0+-=mMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170406023123.GA1071@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CA+KqGkqSxeAUZFVFqM_QkEWcGFHgZXwGuOE==7HpXp1+D_Tj3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 19:51:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDp1eS=458y5EK6YkGuhfWwgY5vnuMaEdUMA-HizdeJb7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bram Cohen <bram@bittorrent.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ricardo_P=C3=A9rez_Marco?= <ricardo.perez.marco@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the
 Bitcoin POW function
Precedence: list

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Asicboost also has the problem that it isn't treating the hashing as a black
> box, and thus has impacts on what gets mined. In particular it creates an
> incentive to make blocks smaller. That's a very unwanted effect, and
> anything like it should be engineered out on principle.

This is an interesting point.

If you have a precise description why it makes an incentive to make
blocks smaller I would love to read it.
Somebody asked and I didn't have an answer.
I imagine you try several reorderings sometimes excluding certain
branches of the merkle tree, permuting the branches you exclude or
something similar, but I really don't know the algorithm in detail and
I didn't want to say something inaccurate.