The AsicBoost 'dilemma'

[ebliever]

what will happen if this is only the first of many patents? will we change code everytime that happens in the future?

You know, that's a good question. And in AsicBoost's case, we don't even know how they're planning to market their technology but I'm sure that harming bitcoin would be against their interest. The HK agreement that Todd cites was a roundtable that several people from bitcoin ASIC manufacturing companies (Bitmain, BitFury, Spondoolies-Tech) and pools (GHash.IO, F2Pool, BW, BTCC). I'm sure that those people wouldn't want patented technologies competing with them but this isn't really in the best interest of the bitcoin user. There's a lot of money at stake but forking bitcoin specifically to make a technology irrelevant mostly helps big miners.

I don't think we want the dev's to start trying to actively manage what is and is not allowed, unless there is an overwhelming consensus that something needs to be proscribed to maintain network security. (Which is not the case here.) If someone has a bright idea to improve mining, why not let them make a profit off it? The chance to make a profit provides a powerful incentive to innovate.

[1715165563]

1715165563

[1715165563]

1715165563

[1715165563]

1715165563

[1715165563]

1715165563

[Amph]

Worst case it is like a tax, if it really works, then every coin mined, they collect a small amount, say .05 coin.
Overall miner save 20%.
This is a win win situation.
I don't think asicboost will closely control patent, running their mining business, not let anybody use it etc. that will be against free market principal.

if everyone will save 20% then it's like none are saving anything, the same condition as before, the same profit

[Mr Felt]

The AsicBoost debate is really interesting, I appreciate those folks that are taking the time to develop arguments here (whatever the position). I haven't really formulated an opinion on this issue, but this debate has jogged my memory about a patent I saw months ago while searching the Patent Office's records.  I'll have to go back through some old notes to find what I think I read originally, but its something like the patent found here: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015138506A1.  The title is: "A system and method for detecting intrusions through real-time processing of traffic with extensive historical perspective." A word search for "Bitcoin" will take you to this paragraph:

[00027] In some embodiments, a score module may be implemented to analyze the extracted item memory, score the detections in the type- structured data, and correlate the detections with host ID data. In some embodiments, the score module can run checks on the type- structured data to determine if any thresholds have been exceeded. In some embodiments, the score module may edit or update the host ID data (e.g. in host data) with new detection information. For instance, the score module may correlate newly detected bitcoin mining activity to an existing host ID and update the host ID with further information regarding the recent bitcoin activity. In some embodiments, the score module further comprises an alert agent which can generate alert data if a network attack threshold is exceeded. In some embodiments, the score module comprises a query agent which can retrieve data from the extracted item memory in response to network security

administrators or other network security devices. In some embodiments, the score module may generate the alert data or query responses as reporting output.

This means an internet provider, who probably sub-licenses routers to its customers fwiw, may be able and/or required to detect bitcoin mining and possibly node activity. This is a bigger potential threat than licensing a particular bit of ASIC tech IMHO; that's not to say the same strategy being debated RE: ASICBoost isn't applicable to mining detection.  Consider what would happen if miners have to go through KYC compliance or meet some other regulation. Internet providers may be forced to act as deputies and report any detected mining or other related activity.  If that is the case, home-miners could be persuaded to give up mining; miners able to continue might just decide to relocate and/or congregate in more friendly environments. I'm not intending to create a staw-person or a slippery slope argument here, I just think there may be bigger fish to fry (or to consider frying) vis-a-vis the patent scene.  

[alani123]

The AsicBoost debate is really interesting, I appreciate those folks that are taking the time to develop arguments here (whatever the position). I haven't really formulated an opinion on this issue, but this debate has jogged my memory about a patent I saw months ago while searching the Patent Office's records.  I'll have to go back through some old notes to find what I think I read originally, but its something like the patent found here: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015138506A1.  The title is: "A system and method for detecting intrusions through real-time processing of traffic with extensive historical perspective." A word search for "Bitcoin" will take you to this paragraph:

[00027] In some embodiments, a score module may be implemented to analyze the extracted item memory, score the detections in the type- structured data, and correlate the detections with host ID data. In some embodiments, the score module can run checks on the type- structured data to determine if any thresholds have been exceeded. In some embodiments, the score module may edit or update the host ID data (e.g. in host data) with new detection information. For instance, the score module may correlate newly detected bitcoin mining activity to an existing host ID and update the host ID with further information regarding the recent bitcoin activity. In some embodiments, the score module further comprises an alert agent which can generate alert data if a network attack threshold is exceeded. In some embodiments, the score module comprises a query agent which can retrieve data from the extracted item memory in response to network security

administrators or other network security devices. In some embodiments, the score module may generate the alert data or query responses as reporting output.

This means an internet provider, who probably sub-licenses routers to its customers fwiw, may be able and/or required to detect bitcoin mining and possibly node activity. This is a bigger potential threat than licensing a particular bit of ASIC tech IMHO; that's not to say the same strategy being debated RE: ASICBoost isn't applicable to mining detection.  Consider what would happen if miners have to go through KYC compliance or meet some other regulation. Internet providers may be forced to act as deputies and report any detected mining or other related activity.  If that is the case, home-miners could be persuaded to give up mining; miners able to continue might just decide to relocate and/or congregate in more friendly environments. I'm not intending to create a staw-person or a slippery slope argument here, I just think there may be bigger fish to fry (or to consider frying) vis-a-vis the patent scene.  

Interesting theorization, but I doubt that this is what parties involved with mining that attended the roundtable are worried about. Would ISPs go that far to protect a patent, especially in China? They way I see this, existing ASIC manufacturers see AsicBoost as competition. Given that they wouldn't be able to use the tech freely due to the patent, they'd rather have devs make AsicBoost irrelevant other than having to submit to the competition.

[dooglus]

No one is stopping you from mining, making ASICS, optimizing your shit to make it faster/more efficient. You just can't use AsicBoost's work. Not without paying for it. Because it's not yours.

I don't want to use their work. I want to use an optimization that I came up with independently, but which they are attempting to claim some kind of ownership of.

Are you telling me that my idea is not mine because you had the same idea? That makes no sense.

[Blacula X]

Are you telling me that my idea is not mine because you had the same idea? That makes no sense.

No, I'm telling you that while I think it's pure coincidence that you had the same idea after reading theirs, you're just shit out of luck. Just like you would be shit out of luck if you published Crime and Punishment (which you totally wrote on your own) a few years after Dostoyevsky published his.
Even though I totally believe you.

But chillax, the patent hasn't been granted yet, merely submitted (pending). If AsicBoost is as self-evident as you claim, no patent will be granted

[TKeenan]

Which basically means free market died around 1474
BTW, you having a cow gives you "a monopoly [on that cow] at the expense of all other parties," which is "against free market principles."

Exactly.  These socialist morons think patents are evil.  Some companies spend 10s of millions to get an idea working - then the others just press one button and copy it and start selling it.  It is no wonder the US has shitloads of VC money and Europe has none.  If you are wondering why it is nearly impossible to make a startup in Europe - it is because the patent system is so weak compared to the US.

[fenican]

The reality is 99% of this hardware is built in China and they all copy each other's designs without regard to intellectual property.

If the speedup was 2000% and all the hardware was made in the USA where patents are strongly enforced might be relevant but a minor 20% optimization is nothing we should be hard forking to avoid. Irrelevant - many design advances in ASIC, widely copied, have yielded far more than 20% boosts and Bitcoin has managed to survive.

[dooglus]

Are you telling me that my idea is not mine because you had the same idea? That makes no sense.

No, I'm telling you that while I think it's pure coincidence that you had the same idea after reading theirs, you're just shit out of luck.

So even though you believe that we came up with the idea independently of each other, one person should be allowed to use the idea and the other shouldn't?

That really just makes no sense.

Just like you would be shit out of luck if you published Crime and Punishment (which you totally wrote on your own) a few years after Dostoyevsky published his.
Even though I totally believe you.

You appear to be confusing patents and copyright. They're quite different things. You can't independently write the same novel. If I tried to publish a copy of an existing work then clearly I have copied it.

But chillax, the patent hasn't been granted yet, merely submitted (pending). If AsicBoost is as self-evident as you claim, no patent will be granted

You have more faith in the patent system than I do.

[Blacula X]

Are you telling me that my idea is not mine because you had the same idea? That makes no sense.

No, I'm telling you that while I think it's pure coincidence that you had the same idea after reading theirs, you're just shit out of luck.

So even though you believe that we came up with the idea independently of each other, one person should be allowed to use the idea and the other shouldn't?

That really just makes no sense.

I could tell you that I was being sarcastic, that coming up with their idea after reading it is called "retention" and not "invention." I won't, I'll just say "they found it first, and got dibs on it." Just like they would have dibs on the dollar bill they found on the sidewalk, which you would have found if they didn't. It's theirs. To do with as they wish.

Just like you would be shit out of luck if you published Crime and Punishment (which you totally wrote on your own) a few years after Dostoyevsky published his.
Even though I totally believe you.

You appear to be confusing patents and copyright. They're quite different things. You can't independently write the same novel. If I tried to publish a copy of an existing work then clearly I have copied it.

Oh stop it. Of course I'm not confusing patents and copyright, I'm using whatcha m'call an analogy. Crime and Punishment is such an obvious novel that anyone could have written it. Especially after reading it. Much like you read the AsicBoost pdf.

But chillax, the patent hasn't been granted yet, merely submitted (pending). If AsicBoost is as self-evident as you claim, no patent will be granted

You have more faith in the patent system than I do.

It's imperfect, it's exploitable, but it's far better than nothing. Possibly due to the fact that inventors aren't a particularly powerful lobby, so the laws protecting their work are unlikely to be stacked in their favor.
As others have pointed out, this is all pointless rhetoric, since the Chinese (who'll most likely be making your next batch of silicon) don't particularly care about patent law & could release their next gen chips through some Belize corporation, perhaps with some catchy/original name, like AsicMiner.
So even if AsicBoost kids have the wherewithal to decap and conclusively prove, at gate level, that their patented methods are being used, good luck to them finding an entity to sue.

[Evildrum]

May seem like a double standard but the fact he is creating a aspect that could change bitcoin and at the same time limit who has access. So attempting to create a monoply, that is against bitcoin in my opinion and it strips away the mask of double standard.

[Blacula X]

May seem like a double standard but the fact he is creating a aspect that could change bitcoin and at the same time limit who has access. So attempting to create a monoply, that is against bitcoin in my opinion and it strips away the mask of double standard.

Unless I'm missing something (possible, I only skimmed through their pdf), we're talking about ~20% boost? Better designed silicon from the same node process could offer more (and did in the past, and how!).
'Far as limiting access, a huge chunk of Bitcoin hashpower was manufactured by a guy known only as Friedcat. How would one mount a case against that?
Plus straight from the horse):

Since the rights granted by a U.S. patent extend only throughout the territory of the United States and have no effect in a foreign country, an inventor who wishes patent protection in other countries must apply for a patent in each of the other countries or in regional patent offices. Almost every country has its own patent law, and a person desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for patent in that country, in accordance with the requirements of that country.
Tempest in a teacup on so many levels.

Besides, patent hasn't even been granted. Might never be, if dooglus is on the money.

[yayayo]

Since the rights granted by a U.S. patent extend only throughout the territory of the United States and have no effect in a foreign country, an inventor who wishes patent protection in other countries must apply for a patent in each of the other countries or in regional patent offices. Almost every country has its own patent law, and a person desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for patent in that country, in accordance with the requirements of that country.
Tempest in a teacup on so many levels.

Besides, patent hasn't even been granted. Might never be, if dooglus is on the money.

Well, it's possible that the patent never materializes in reality. However things tend to happen very fast in the Bitcoin universe. Therefore it seems appropriate to be prepared for the worst. When it comes to financial software, it's always good to have slightly paranoid people like Peter Todd on board. Better be safe than sorry.

Clearly this is not about being against innovation. The problem is, that this kind of innovation might not be equally available to all miners, which poses the risk of a malevolent mining cartel.

ya.ya.yo!

[Blacula X]

Clearly this is not about being against innovation. The problem is, that this kind of innovation might not be equally available to all miners, which poses the risk of a malevolent mining cartel.

Of course it's not gonna be equally available to all miners, nothing ever is. Not government subsidized 2-4 cent power, just for starters.
As far as "malevolent mining cartels" go, scratch the malevolent part (Bitcoin has no anti-monopoly rules, afaik), and sure, we got them already

http://s32.postimg.org/ru8bnc6j9/bitchrs.jpg

[mookid]

This AsicBoost debate is very important for the future, I'm not entirely sold on the idea to hard-fork Bitcoin just to eradicate someone's innovation. If we allow this fork, then how many will be needed if someone else decides to file a new patent because they designed a chip that gives 1000% more hashing power?
Are we really going to prevent intellectual property?

[dooglus]

The reality is 99% of this hardware is built in China and they all copy each other's designs without regard to intellectual property.

True. But can they export patent-infringing hardware to the West?

If the speedup was 2000% and all the hardware was made in the USA where patents are strongly enforced might be relevant but a minor 20% optimization is nothing we should be hard forking to avoid. Irrelevant - many design advances in ASIC, widely copied, have yielded far more than 20% boosts and Bitcoin has managed to survive.

20% isn't minor. It will be the difference between being able to mine profitably or not.

There is a physical limit to how fast hardware can mine. Hardware which is allowed to skip repeating part of the hashing process will be able to mine faster and cheaper than hardware that cannot. Eventually the faster hardware will be profitable and the slower hardware will be uneconomical to run.

Bitcoin was designed to allow anyone to be able to mine it. A mining environment where one entity is able to mine 20% faster than all the others because they are using government power to cripple the competition doesn't work out well for Bitcoin as a whole.

[Kakmakr]

I dont see why this should be blocked anymore than ASICs were. If it works then eventually everyone will use this process and "standard" ASICs would be obsolete. Just like FPGAs, GPUs and CPUs.

I think the problem is more with the patent. It would effectively create a monopoly on money, if only one company can dominate the manufacturing and supply, because they are protected by the patent. A global patent would stop other competitors from entering the mining scene.

It's supposed to be a free market. ^hmmm^

[Blacula X]

...
Bitcoin was designed to allow anyone to be able to mine it. A mining environment where one entity is able to mine 20% faster than all the others because they are using government power to cripple the competition doesn't work out well for Bitcoin as a whole.

By "government power," you mean subsidized Chinese 2 to 4 cent per kWh power, right? That's more than a 20% edge on my rate tho. Life is so unfair

[Karartma1]

We already have a centralized mining horizon (80% of mining is in China). I don't see how we are in a free market right now.
This dilemma is a true one and creates increasing troubles to the mining industry approaching the halving.
For the first time I am a bit worried.

[Joel_Jantsen]

We already have a centralized mining horizon (80% of mining is in China). I don't see how we are in a free market right now.

Don't know how accurate are your stats ,even if its true ,I don't see see any relevance in it being called "centralized".Mining isn't profitable anymore,with electricity costs and everything ,difficult for an individual to make profit out of it especially in the western countries where prices are sky rocket high.China has mining farms on a large scale,early adopters.The mining farms are too expensive to be shut down considering the amounts invested in them.

This dilemma is a true one and creates increasing troubles to the mining industry approaching the halving.
For the first time I am a bit worried.

Again,the lesser the miners it will be more lucrative for them with the low block rewards.