Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF724256 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 01:23:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f47.google.com (mail-vk0-f47.google.com [209.85.213.47]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E50089C for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 01:23:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id f66so79655093vkh.2 for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 18:23:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blockstream-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=00DSWUvXbUKLJQHGme6wG65Rud6fIwCTQs8kgU+ducM=; b=c+w17KmI4GMPQAUfb3U9E5IRsPxKPIuBfnSKI7yQk343TtQ+0TkGKX5GLcKZow6fgI gOXBj9cb8Bae9tmI3Wj1GgDsrwaCl3Bla7uRTN/pTRrKKh2Zh3g8f4P47kSZ2++6lq5I fLaX+baEX6zHYasE3RUP4S23X+XOufHODnHMmCBd1U3l4+wCagBP2Sc2wNzU7RtkHmwT JjCYW8gwwH0ERD1AppMTzBOg1arnKJu5RLBawb68EanQNfB4UtfMHV9Lpnq50Y4AZGYw fj6LjXS/R05FiRNdOeOqLCsuUrVImFMslZ+bXHwX1AIsMsMS2q0YUOKB76JHB3CTWwgQ KIKA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=00DSWUvXbUKLJQHGme6wG65Rud6fIwCTQs8kgU+ducM=; b=mfjfFaMAwekt7tbIfmMRiS8aALGKMtmsbIh1UUEBsJMB6os1O+zFZ5sOozYIub/Gkv xfDsCme8v67ZWswpMMQOBT2on6a0d7D8JdVWm9wQaylAPl6eg5DXO+ser7TvKzmc87+u X5uaHo9Fs9tkUk+EnPj9D21mkJW69lJHMHT1FJ2B0ZlNSlYztI9+RUYUXAn7NeQ3uwcy yTcTz2F1HpjvPa+m3he6xacgO726hpBKG5sF1kqbY/DMafS34bX3jmeM9WMzRB4R0ZbN B0a1IhUZwSrvON1I78Wdok7pavhDRnXX+b/fPacE0/MdIeXkq7Crg2tuOifn5KFvUM+S ayCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FX5aq3YGKWLopyOkYhHpkEfrL+tjw/BGj2DHykXlsX+2hwwGozy+/LFicDMFubtVVaH2n0LXngm4j0fE87l X-Received: by 10.159.38.48 with SMTP id 45mr3482954uag.7.1463016220911; Wed, 11 May 2016 18:23:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.67.7 with HTTP; Wed, 11 May 2016 18:23:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20160510185728.GA1149@fedora-21-dvm> <20160511230144.GA5252@fedora-21-dvm> From: "Russell O'Connor" Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 21:23:21 -0400 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e1ca62634a605329b0217 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham 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, 12 May 2016 01:40:28 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant 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, 12 May 2016 01:23:44 -0000 --001a113e1ca62634a605329b0217 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 > 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 > --001a113e1ca62634a605329b0217 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Is the design and manufacturing processes for the most pow= er efficient ASICs otherwise patent unencumbered?=C2=A0 If not, why do we c= are so much about this one patent over all the others that stand on the roa= d 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@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Secondly, we can probably make the consensus PoW allow blocks to be mi= ned using
> both the existing PoW algorithm, and a very slightly tweaked version w= here
> 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 accepte= d
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/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a113e1ca62634a605329b0217--