I disagree. The use of the ASICBoost mechanism prevents improvements to
the Bitcoin network. It is not an optimization of the mining process. In fact, it
uses a short cut or loophole.When GPUs became ASICs that is somewhat acceptable,
since that was a true optimization in technology.ASICBoost exploits a failing in PoW
which creates non-mining and far reaching problems for the community.
It is one thing to create new mining devices to beat your competitors, its another to
find "zero-days" which could be used to beat your competitor as well as prevent
further expansion of the bitcoin code in ways that even Satoshi envisioned.
prevent improvements? seriously..!! then gmaxwell should could program new code that does work. rather than be adement that the code should not change one bit but hardware should.. blaming hardware is no excuse for sloppy code. especially when the code doesnt live up to ANY of its promises anyway. i can think of many ways to fix it in software but after dealing with his snobbery last year where it took a good 6 months for him to accept the issue was an issue and then without admission change a few things round.. screw it if im gonna help him again |
|
|
|
Well they say they don't use it, but then why would they implement asicboost in their production hardware and have firmware available to use it if they weren't going to use it?
who gives a crap if they use it or not. the hardware existed before segwit. much like ATI and Geforce existed before bitcoin if bitcoin2010-2013 suddenly had an update that caused issues with ATI cards.. where GPU mining was only possible on inefficient Geforce cards, blame the software update. not ATI people would have laughed if someone made a software update to bitcoin and set the bitcoin software to become active later on but then realised before even being active the software wont work with ATI... but still devs pretend ATI is exploiting/attacking bitcoin. there would be no logic in that madness |
|
|
|
|
im laughing
hardware that has existed for 2 years has good efficiency boosts..
software that has only been publicly ready 6 months and yet to be in active use...
and gmaxwell thinks the hardware is the problem.
gmaxwell where were you in 2011 , you would probably want to nuke ATI for being more efficient then Geforce. and then blame ATI for some software bug your team didnt pick up on that wasnt ATI compatible.
calling ATI an exploiter/attacker.. rather than admit the software cant do its job right if people want to use ATI GPU's back then
serious snobbery from Gmaxwell
if segwit cant do its job because of a asi effiency boost.. then re-do segwit, while at it, make the code user dynamic to not need dev's to be king overlords
|
|
|
|
Bitmain in their recent statement admitted that there chips have ASICBoost
built in, but have not used them on the main chain. Are you calling Bitmain
timetravelers then? Obviously not. This means they had them for a longer
time than people assumed.
what i mean is asicboost is not a "segwit attack/exploit" asicboost is just an efficiency gain.. end off.. its greg denying his bad code, by using his snobbery to hide that his code is just not compatible with hardware of 2 years ago When SegWit was released, Bitmain and it's pool, Antpool, did not yet know
that the Coinbase reference is added to with anchor codes. When they learned
it did, they likely began to oppose SegWit on those grounds secretly but
declared publicly it was because there would be no 2MB blocks.
so they said no to segwit because they knew segwit had a incompatibility bug with efficient hardware.. EG like saying you cant use bitcoin with an ATI GPU in 2011, because of an issue that was added in code in 2011 that only works with geforce GPU's do you blame ATI or the code writers for not making mining easy. |
|
|
|
Using ASICBoost prevents many forms of development that helps
scaling and non-scaling issues. It is potentially more serious
than anything else currently.
asic boost has been around longer. easy fix.. make software that doesnt hurt the hardware.. not the other way round. cant blame the hardware of 2 years ago for software problems of 6 months go thats like saying ATI exploited bitcoin by being better at GPU mining in 2011-2013 compared to Geforces poor efforts that like blaming raspberry Pi1 for not validating signatures fast, and so libsecp256k1 had to be invented because raspberry Pi was attacking bitcoin |
|
|
|
some clarification on those "facts":
1. Jihan supported before understanding the final SegWit Implementation code.
2. Extension blocks do not change the Coinbase references, only add new anchor txs.
3. This comment is jumping the gun. In depth investigations begin now.
4. This data set should be larger and go farther back in time. Likely prior to the patent dates.
The ASICBoost could be throttled from time to time to prevent obvious indicators.
5. Fees are irrelevant here. The exploit centers around gaining more block rewards.
In a future with less block reward and more fees, this exploit is worthless.
6. We need independent verification, which will begin now.
so your saying they did go back in time and made S9chips to include asic boost to attack segwit.. wow amazing. or logic dictates that segwit wasnt programmed well to actually work with asic efficiency boosts. Hint: which is easier 1. go back in time by 2 years and undo hardware changes to meet temporary software requirements just 6 months ago, just for some blockstreamer 2. get the centralist blockstream team to now change their code seeing as its only been in public for 6 months and not even active code yet calling an efficiency boost an attack, even though the efficiency boost existed prior to the code that is supposedly being attacked.. has been the funniest twist of words by greg this month. anyway just done some quick maths  * stats at time of post hmm looks like BTCC and F2pool are the ones making more blocks than their hash % not the other way round *for those wishing to question the numbers  i would have expected antpool to have a block % of something in the 40's while having hash in the 30's if all this gmaxwell PoW propaganda was real definitely not less than their hash% |
|
|
|
The only thing that'll sort it is a successfully implemented upgrade that ... addresses the qualms of the few sane ones.
yp its called decentralised consensus where nodes set the rules, pools follow and devs just work on making things which the users accept or deny. no dev mandated crap, no dev-king nuke bombs starting with dynamic blocksize with a few tweaks to drop maxTXsigop limits to way way way below 20% of maxBLOCKsigop limit (real quadratic spam fix) and LN as a voluntary side service. not the end goal only resort nodes=king pools=secretary devs=manual labour |
|
|
|
You are assuming that when the miners signed the HK agreement,
they already knew what the final SegWit implementation would be.
The reality is that they did not perform their due diligence until after
SegWit was released. When the miners signed the "agreement" they
signed a promise based on a design that was still being worked out.
It is very likely that when ASICBoost Miners learned that the
coinbase is altered in SegWit, they would never follow through with
the full terms of the HK "agreement".
ASICBoost Miners, in theory, can never support new coinbase
references. The issue is not SegWit, it is the Coinbase data.
your assuming that bitmain read october 2016's segwit code and then time travels back to 2015 and made blueprints for a chip that could attack segwit.. .. more likely sceneario.. segwit is not ASIC compatible .. not the other way round.(unless time travel is possible) end result 0.13.x versions have issues with ASIC and no longer going to be segwit compatible .. time to wait a month and let 0.14.1 to be released and let blockstream restart their nodecount that will work with ASICS |
|
|
|
and now the burst your bubble moment ASICS have been around alot longer than segwit has. trying to assume that asics were hard programmed to actively attack segwit is like blaming a caveman for something invented much much later. let me guess Jihan has a time machine and seen october 2016's segwit code and and went back in time to 2015 and started building the blueprints for the s9 specifically to hurt segwit p.s im using gmaxwells announcement of him reverse engineering a chip... (before you propaganda twist it into being about software) afterall your all complaining about bitmain (hardware company) not CGminer (software company) kind of funny hardware and cgminer developed befor segwit:bitcoin was even released is suddenly.. 6 months into segwit deadline a "sudden threat" yawn gmaxwel has $70m debt to repay and is actually looking to for any reason to split the network. afterall he did ask nicely early on What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
and has slowly got more and more desperate each week closer it gets to the deadline when he is suppose to offer something to appease his VC masters. meanwhile other implementations plod along for the last 2 years + making no threats no deadlines and no timebomb or PoW nukes.. time to say blockstream are getting REKT. all them real independant core devs. maybe its time to maintain core without blockstream reliance because blockstream wont be around forever |
|
|
|
Because Vermin is dash guy and let'm scale dash as he want and get the fuck out of Bitcoin
let gmaxwell play with his fiat and monero and stop making bitcoin into his 'centralist experiment' to appease his future bosses at hyperledger. let DCG go play with zcash and litecoin let BTCC go play with litecoin we al know they have lost their desire for bitcoin along time ago |
|
|
|
|
and now the burst your bubble moment
ASICS have been around alot longer than segwit has.
trying to assume that asics were hard programmed to actively attack segwit is like blaming a caveman for something invented much much later.
let me guess Jihan has a time machine and seen october 2016's segwit code and and went back in time to 2015 and started building the blueprints for the s9 specifically to hurt segwit
p.s im using gmaxwells announcement of him reverse engineering a chip... (before you propaganda twist it into being about software)
afterall your all complaining about bitmain (hardware company) not CGminer (software company)
|
|
|
|
The problem here isn't ASICBOOST. The problem is that Jihan Wu (and others) are actively blocking SegWit for their own personal gain, while pretending that it is a difference in principle and they are acting to help us all.
sorry to burst your bubble but ASICS have been around alot longer than segwit has. trying to assume that asics were hard programmed to actively attack segwit is like blaming a caveman for something invented much much later. let me guess Jihan has a time machine and seen october 2016's segwit code and and went back in time to 2015 and started building the blueprints for the s9 specifically to hurt segwit p.s im using gmaxwells assumptions of reverse engineering a chip... (before you propaganda twist it into being about software) afterall ur all complaining about bitmain (hardware company) not CGminer (software company) |
|
|
|
|
lol
i didnt see people crying when an AMD CPU had an advantage vs a Intel CPU
i didnt see people crying when an ATI GPU had an advantage vs a Geforce GPU
but all of a sudden "bomb ASICS coz gmaxwell says so"
why the sudden bomb threats and deadlines and blackmails..
is the $70m debt recovery process coming soo soon?
|
|
|
|
franky1 don't dispute, you know as well as I that BU would and will never happen, no fork as a matter of fact. Yes there's "no one forcing anyone" but yet that's all these kids have been talking about these past few days. It has been catalyzed by something...
i have been pasting this sooo many times this little nugget What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
its not the intention of NON-CORE implementations to split the network.. as you say its gmaxwell and his chums baiting the community the catalyst is get the community pointing at BU, while blockstream try to make their TIER network for the DCG cartel. after all blockstream and DCG had a round table meeting over a month ago, and rather than publicly release the minutes of their meeting they pushed out the "craig wright is satoshi" mantra to distract the real conversation. i am not in any bandcamp no matter how hard they try to throw me in a band camp. i can just see passed all the blockstream reddit scripts of REKT campaigns to pretend blockstream are the victims. there should be no core TIER network (but gmaxwell needs it to repay the $70m debt) there are not only 2 implementations there are over a dozen. the only ones not playing ball by avoiding a fair open diverse decentralised peer network are blockstream(core) |
|
|
|
So Blockstream wants the bitcoin market to be centralized through a few central companies and hubs?
• Nope, that was Bitmain that wanted to maintain centralization of mining hardware and hashing power through their company and hubs.
LOL check out DCG portfolio http://dcg.co/portfolio/#bblockstream bitpay BTCC http://dcg.co/portfolio/#ccoinbase blah blah blah.. yep all the big names of the blockstream cartels cabin fever mindset of REKTing anything not blockstream sanctioned, as a altcoin are all on the portfolio P.S while its the DCG/bockstream cartel that are fearmungering, making deadlines shouting threats, mandatory activations, going soft to avoid node consensus, adding PoW nukes. the other decentralised peer implementations are just plodding along letting consensus decide.. no threats no deadlines. and saying no to splitting the network What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
|
|
|
|
isn't this old?
i swear i heard about this at least 4 months ago, cobra or whatever said this and nothing happened.
has this resurfaced or is it a repetition of an old drama (sorry can't open reddit from here)
he re-launched his mission yesterday. reddit Cobra-Bitcoin -87 points 1 day ago
The paper is under the MIT license and part of the original Bitcoin project support files. The paper points to bitcoin.org, and was originally uploaded there, it's well within our right to produce an updated version that corrects the major problems. As things are right now, too many people get encouraged to read the white paper to "learn" about how Bitcoin works, and these people just come out with an incorrect interpretation of how things should be.
cobra tried to do this last year. many objected and the drama died..
seems like core cant take no for an answer and will just keep trying to push it rather then get over their own snobbery
|
|
|
|
By that I mean BITMAIN and associates. This includes the likes of ViaBTC, and other mostly Chinese organizations/individuals.
you might want to reach further over to the blockstreams associates side. EG F2pool and BTCC oh that reminds me. even f2pool was good enough to have morals to admit something meanwhile bitcoins segwit 31% block flagging is only temporary due to a hack expect it to drop back down below 30% in the next fortnight https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/848582740798611456 Wang Chun @f2pool_wangchun
Someone hacked major mining operations and their stratum had been changed from antpool, viabtc, btctop to us. Our hashrate doubled instantly
10:07 am - 2 Apr 2017
 |
|
|
|
apparently being used
prove it i do laugh at you and gmaxwell waffle about X but then throw in the "apparently" "could be" "potentially" anyway lets see what the maths really tells us just done some quick maths * stats at time of post hmm looks like BTCC and F2pool are the ones making more blocks than their hash % not the other way round *for those wishing to question the numbers i would have expected antpool to have a block % of something in the 40's while having hash in the 30's if all this gmaxwell PoW propaganda was real definitely not less than their hash% oh well gmaxwell debunked. kind of funny how many times gmaxwells announcement didnt name the pool and how many times gmaxwell uses the word "they could" rather then "they are" A month ago I was explaining the attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 hashcash which
is exploited by ASICBOOST and the various steps which could be used to
block it in the network if it became a problem.
While most discussion of ASICBOOST has focused on the overt method
of implementing it, there also exists a covert method for using it.
An incompatibility would go a long way to explain some of the
more inexplicable behavior from some parties in the mining
ecosystem so I began looking for supporting evidence.
Reverse engineering of a particular mining chip has demonstrated
conclusively that ASICBOOST has been implemented
in hardware. Due to a design oversight the Bitcoin proof of work function has a potential
attack which can allow an attacking miner to save up-to 30% of their energy
costs (though closer to 20% is more likely due to implementation overheads). .. just to let the script writers twist it into "its an attack, bomb them bomb them bomb them" P.S gotta laugh that when its an exploit.. he words it as attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 [adambacks] hashcash. but when its a bug he calls it an bitcoin proof of work oversight.... he is too far deep inside his bosses pocket |
|
|
|
lets see what the maths really tells us
this post is very clear to anyone that you not even understand what we talk about here....  what a crap what has to do this with ASICBOOST?  Ver is You? asicboost should be showing a 20-30% advantage not a minus% disadvantage now show me your stats dare ya! |
|
|
|
lets see what the maths really tells us just done some quick maths * stats at time of post hmm looks like BTCC and F2pool are the ones making more blocks than their hash % not the other way round *for those wishing to question the numbers i would have expected antpool to have a block % of something in the 40's while having hash in the 30's if all this gmaxwell PoW propaganda was real definitely not less than their hash% oh well gmaxwell debunked. kind of funny how many times gmaxwells announcement didnt name the pool and how many times gmaxwell uses the word "they could" rather then "they are" A month ago I was explaining the attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 hashcash which
is exploited by ASICBOOST and the various steps which could be used to
block it in the network if it became a problem.
While most discussion of ASICBOOST has focused on the overt method
of implementing it, there also exists a covert method for using it.
An incompatibility would go a long way to explain some of the
more inexplicable behavior from some parties in the mining
ecosystem so I began looking for supporting evidence.
Reverse engineering of a particular mining chip has demonstrated
conclusively that ASICBOOST has been implemented
in hardware. Due to a design oversight the Bitcoin proof of work function has a potential
attack which can allow an attacking miner to save up-to 30% of their energy
costs (though closer to 20% is more likely due to implementation overheads). .. just to let the script writers twist it into "its an attack, bomb them bomb them bomb them" P.S gotta laugh that when its an exploit.. he words it as exploiting [adambacks] hashcash. but when its a bug he calls it an bitcoin proof of work oversight.... he is too far deep inside his bosses pocket |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
