In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKkS3nRVanRBtm4gRUvnTqS2Vt0gjsgkpwewEXjJk+zvDw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160510185728.GA1149@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CAH6h1Ls_Dh_oBo-fUMoBtwCQ=U3XgBLhbuHvH+ra78bjHYNyXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160511230144.GA5252@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CAAS2fgT8fgwJMAgRBMYft-3MoWPRhu5Kaq7u08AXtnw1Hv=vng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMZUoKkS3nRVanRBtm4gRUvnTqS2Vt0gjsgkpwewEXjJk+zvDw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----J70MDSTATREMF9CIY4HVAEVB5CTSNZ"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 01:58:42 +0000
To: Russell O'Connor <roconnor@blockstream.io>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <AD15D42A-65C6-45E1-B8AF-032DCDA21283@mattcorallo.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant
Precedence: list

------J70MDSTATREMF9CIY4HVAEVB5CTSNZ
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8

Aside from patents related to the silicon manufacturing process itself and patents not yet published, yes, the process is unencumbered, and setting the correct precedent (that the community will fight large centralization risks) is important in the first case.

Matt

On May 11, 2016 9:23:21 PM EDT, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Is the design and manufacturing processes for the most power efficient
>ASICs otherwise patent unencumbered?  If not, why do we care so much
>about
>this one patent over all the others that stand on the road between pen
>and
>paper computation and thermodynamically ideal computation?
>
>On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > Secondly, we can probably make the consensus PoW allow blocks to be
>> mined using
>> > both the existing PoW algorithm, and a very slightly tweaked
>version
>> where
>> > implementing AsicBoost gives no advantage. That removes any
>incentive to
>> > implement AsicBoost, without making any hardware obsolete
>>
>> Taking that a step further, the old POW could continue to be accepted
>> but with a 20% target penalty. (or vice versa, with the new POW
>having
>> a 20% target boost.)
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>bitcoin-dev mailing list
>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

------J70MDSTATREMF9CIY4HVAEVB5CTSNZ
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html><head></head><body>Aside from patents related to the silicon manufacturing process itself and patents not yet published, yes, the process is unencumbered, and setting the correct precedent (that the community will fight large centralization risks) is important in the first case.<br>
<br>
Matt<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On May 11, 2016 9:23:21 PM EDT, Russell O&#39;Connor via bitcoin-dev &lt;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt; wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">Is the design and manufacturing processes for the most power efficient ASICs otherwise patent unencumbered?  If not, why do we care so much about this one patent over all the others that stand on the road between pen and paper computation and thermodynamically ideal computation?<br /></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev<br />
&lt;<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br />
&gt; Secondly, we can probably make the consensus PoW allow blocks to be mined using<br />
&gt; both the existing PoW algorithm, and a very slightly tweaked version where<br />
&gt; implementing AsicBoost gives no advantage. That removes any incentive to<br />
&gt; implement AsicBoost, without making any hardware obsolete<br />
<br />
</span>Taking that a step further, the old POW could continue to be accepted<br />
but with a 20% target penalty. (or vice versa, with the new POW having<br />
a 20% target boost.)<br />
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br />
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br />
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br />
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br />
</div></div></blockquote></div><br /></div>
<p style="margin-top: 2.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; border-bottom: 1px solid #000"></p><pre class="k9mail"><hr /><br />bitcoin-dev mailing list<br />bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<br /><a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br /></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>
------J70MDSTATREMF9CIY4HVAEVB5CTSNZ--