On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev < firstname.lastname@example.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 > modify the code in order to negate as much of the gains as possible. > > There are differences, too, of course: the DAO attacker was explicitly > malicious and stole Ether from others, whereas Bitmain is just optimizing > their hardware better than anyone else and better than some of us think > they should be allowed to. > > In both cases, developers are proposing that the developers and a majority > 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 > that justification doesn't apply in this case. On the other hand, in this > case we're talking about causing someone a loss by reducing the value of > hardware investments rather than forcibly taking back their coins, which is > less 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 > employed as a means of disempowering and empoverishing particular entities > without very good reason. Whether patenting a mining optimization qualifies > as good reason is questionable. > Bitmain is blocking protocol upgrades to preserve their mining advantage. This is quite distinct from someone taking advantage of a visibly broken and highly toxic smart contract to net themselves tens of millions of dollars. Further, Bitmain is performing a patented hardware optimization. The patents mean that other miners are unable to capitalize on these optimizations. These optimizations are to the tune of 30%. If you give one player in the mining industry a permanent 30% cost advantage they will eventually own everything. It's an industry where margins tend towards zero. The asicboost patent is a direct threat to the health of the Bitcoin ecosystem, and now we have visible proof. The war against segwit and the strife with Bitcoin Unlimited was very damaging to the ecosystem, damaging to the price, and holding back significant improvements and upgrades to the Bitcoin protocol. I interpret this as a direct attack on the Bitcoin ecosystem. I don't know if changing the rules to nullify asicboost is the right move. I'm sure this won't be the last patent that causes damage to the ecosystem. But you need to recognize that the issue is not that Bitmain ran a hardware optimization. It's that hardware optimizations exist which directly inhibit upgrading the protocol. And it's that hardware optimizations exist encumbered by patents enough to give one party a decisive advantage in mining, decisive enough for them to build a single, centralized monopoly. Each problem is separate, and each problem is significant, and each problem is fundamental. The DAO attack was a one-time bout of stupidity that threatened a fixed amount of money. asicboost is an ongoing status that directly damages Bitcoin's ability to upgrade, and directly damage Bitcoin's ability to retain any modicum of decentralization in the hashrate. The DAO issue did neither of these things for ethereum.
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list email@example.com https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev