On May 12, 2016 00:43, "Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This is what I meant. If existing hardware gets forked-out it will
inevitably lead to the creation of an altcoin. Simply because the hardware
exists and can't be used for anything else both chains
And anyone who would have discovered it independently would have been free
to implement it. That's the issue, not that there's an optimization.
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 5/10/2016 2:43 PM, Sergio Demian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11 May 2016 22:27:09 GMT-04:00, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>On 5/10/2016 2:43 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>
>> If we change the protocol then the message to the ecosystem is
On 5/10/2016 2:43 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> If we change the protocol then the message to the ecosystem is that
> ASIC optimizations should be kept secret.
Further to that point, if THIS optimization had been kept secret, nobody
would be talking about doing anything, as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11 May 2016 21:23:21 GMT-04:00, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>Is the design and manufacturing processes for the most power efficient
>ASICs otherwise patent unencumbered? If not, why do we
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
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,
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
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 08:14:33PM -0700, Timo Hanke wrote:
> There is no way to tell from a block if it was mined with AsicBoost or not.
> So you don’t know what percentage of the hashrate uses AsicBoost at any
> point in time. How can you risk forking that percentage out? Note that this
> would
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> This is what I meant. If existing hardware gets forked-out it will
> inevitably lead to the creation of an altcoin. Simply because the hardware
> exists and can't be used for anything else
Ups, I forgot that you take the midstate which of course depends on the
version number. So forget everything I said about the version bits. You are
right. But why take the midstate? It can be any hash of the first chunk. So
you probably want to take a hash function that's available in standard
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Jannes Faber
wrote:
> On 11 May 2016 at 12:36, Henning Kopp wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:21:10AM +0200, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev
>> wrote:
>> > On 11 May 2016 at 05:14, Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev <
I was told that the patent appears to be owned exclusively by Bitmain
in China https://www.google.com/patents/CN105245327A?cl=en
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> That's the reason for this post! All current major ASIC
Indeed, I think the "ASICs are bad, because 1-CPU-1-vote" arguments
mostly died out long ago, and, indeed, the goal that many making those
arguments had of building "unoptimizeable" ASICs failed with them.
I think everyone understands that there will always be some ability to
iterate on ASIC
That's the reason for this post! All current major ASIC manufacturers
have made warrants that they are not using AsicBoost (with the exception
of the 21 Inc Bitcoin computer).
The fact that the optimization was patented is what has required that we
work to hardfork it out, not that people might
Sorry, you must have meant all 12 bytes. That makes finding a collision
substantially harder. However, you may have to restrict yourself to 10
bytes because you don't know if any hardware does timestamp rolling
on-chip. Also you create an incentive to mess around with the version bits
instead, so
Luke, do you mean to replace the first 4 bytes of the second chunk (bytes
64..67 in 0-based counting) by the XOR of those 4 bytes with the first 4
bytes of the midstate? (I assume you don't care about 12 bytes but rather
those 4 bytes.)
This does not work. All it does is adding another
On 11 May 2016 at 16:18, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Jorge Timón said..
> > What do you mean by "embrace" in the context of a patented optimization
> that one miner can prevent the rest from using?
>
> Everyone seems to assume that one
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 12:20:55 PM Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner <
> sergio.d.ler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You can find it here:
> > https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/the-re-design-of-the-bitcoin-blo
> > ck-header/
>
Jorge Timón said..
> What do you mean by "embrace" in the context of a patented optimization
that one miner can prevent the rest from using?
Everyone seems to assume that one ASIC manufacturer will get the advantage
of AsicBoost while others won't. If a patent license is non-exclusive, then
all
On May 11, 2016 05:15, "Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Again: this is unlike the hypothetical persistence of two chains after a
hardfork that is only contentious but doesn’t change the mining algorithm,
the kind of hardfork you are proposing would
Ehm, I though those discussions about "ASICs are bad, because X" ended
years ago by starting "ASIC unfriendly" altcoins. ASIC industry is twisted
even without AsicBoost. I don't see any particular reason why to change
rules just because of 10% edge.
This is opening Pandora box and it is
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner <
sergio.d.ler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> You can find it here:
> https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/the-re-design-of-the-bitcoin-block-header/
>
> Basically, the idea is to put in the first 64 bytes a 4 byte hash of the
> second 64-byte
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:21:10AM +0200, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On 11 May 2016 at 05:14, Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > There is no way to tell from a block if it was mined with AsicBoost or
> > not. So you don’t know what
On 11 May 2016 at 05:14, Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> There is no way to tell from a block if it was mined with AsicBoost or
> not. So you don’t know what percentage of the hashrate uses AsicBoost at
> any point in time. How can you risk forking
There is no way to tell from a block if it was mined with AsicBoost or not.
So you don’t know what percentage of the hashrate uses AsicBoost at any
point in time. How can you risk forking that percentage out? Note that this
would be a GUARANTEED chain fork. Meaning that after you change the block
Replies inline.
On 05/10/16 21:43, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote:
-snip-
> But some ASIC companies already have cores that are better (on power,
> cost, rate, temperature, etc.) than competing companies ASICs. Why do
> you think a 10% improvement from AsicBoost is different from
The second like "2)" has a link to the paper:
http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/~Timo.Hanke/AsicBoostWhitepaperrev5.pdf
which does discuss the fact that it is "patent-pending". Likewise it
discusses ASIC improvements. Avoiding patents that impact bitcoin and are
not freely licensed, is something
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> As part of the hard-fork proposed in the HK agreement(1) we'd like to make
> the
> patented AsicBoost optimisation useless, and hopefully make further similar
> optimizations useless as
Your idea of moving the Merkle root to the second chunk does not work.
The AsicBoost can change the version bits and it does not need to find a
collision.
(However *Spondoolies patent *only mentions Merkle collisions:
Yea, I think in any hardfork that we should be talking about, a part of
it should include 1) fix the version field so its a static constant, 2)
the merkle root becomes hash of the real block header 3) swap first 2
bytes of the merkle root with the timestamp's two high-order bits, 4)
swap the next
The various chunks in the double SHA256 are
Chunk 1: 64 bytes
version
previous_block_digest
merkle_root[31:4]
Chunk 2: 64 bytes
merkle_root[3:0]
nonce
timestamp
target
Chunk 3: 64 bytes
digest from first sha pass
Their improvement requires that all data in Chunk 2 is identical except for
the
32 matches
Mail list logo