1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F39BA82B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 12 May 2016 01:58:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57CB316F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 12 May 2016 01:58:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:2607:fb90:152c:e219:c9be:d0df:b531:6d14] (unknown
[172.56.18.195])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 407585FD9C;
Thu, 12 May 2016 01:58:42 +0000 (UTC)
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>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 01:58:44 -0000
------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'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></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 />
<<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br />
> Secondly, we can probably make the consensus PoW allow blocks to be mined using<br />
> both the existing PoW algorithm, and a very slightly tweaked version where<br />
> implementing AsicBoost gives no advantage. That removes any incentive to<br />
> 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--
|
