Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wu’s been up to.

[Killerpotleaf]

would anyone of these patents hold up in court...

[1713495487]

1713495487

[1713495487]

1713495487

[1713495487]

1713495487

[1713495487]

1713495487

[The One]

Now that Jihan and Bitmain have been outed as exploiting a vulnerability in Bitcoin's PoW and that SegWit would have made it impossible for them to continue exploiting this vulnerability the motivations for blocking SegWit and supporting BU have now become very clear. We're going to see a shift in SegWit support in Bitcoin very soon and LTC is also helping here by activating SegWit first. I can see some more room up for Litecoin until around 0.02 or $25, but this will change as soon as Bitcoin starts to make progress towards activating SegWit as well and people start moving back into BTC. If you think BTC will stay behind and never activate SW or LN you are sorely mistaken. Let's see what happens and see who turns out to be right.

We can't get 95% to activate SegWit on Bitcoin without Bitmain's approval. They have every right to protect their patent's value. Those who think Bitcoiners will rally to fight him are socialists and communists, who deny capitalism, game theory, and economic reality.

Having the right to protect one's patent doesn't give one the right to dictate the terms of Bitcoin evolution. Bitcoin is decentralised and should not be dictated by anyone to their agenda/advantage. It it driven by consensus and not miners.

We can't lower the 95% threshold for Bitcoin, because it will cause too much risk and wild price swings.

Not true. Why does BU set it at 75%? (according to reports.)

Also we shouldn't be putting such experimental shit on Bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to remain reliable.

Bitcoin needs to evolve according the Satoshi's whitepaper and any improvement must be welcomed. Of course rigorous testing and reading of codes is done before any release.

Sorry Bitcoin will remain unmodified, as Satoshi (aka Nash) intended its equilibrium game theory to be a clusterfuck of politics insuring the immutability of the protocol which is what gives Bitcoin its trust and value.

Bitcoin has already been modified to increase reliability, security, etc. However some modifications made should be removed, but that another story.

[jonald_fyookball]

excuses you might think of for this.... people will still remember them for the "cheater" a$$holes they are. Why would anyone in their right

mind stand behind these cheaters?..... Paid shilling

I dont freaking care if Jihan is cheating or not.  I want bigger blocks.  I wanted them 2 years ago.

[iamnotback]

Bitcoin is decentralised and should not be dictated by anyone to their agenda/advantage. It it driven by consensus and not miners.

Lol. Your two sentences are mutual conflicting.

Not true. Why does BU set it at 75%? (according to reports.)

What does that diversionary tactic which will never happen have to do with anything in reality?

Bitcoin needs to evolve according the Satoshi's whitepaper and any improvement must be welcomed.

Put your BTC on the furk, and lose furking all of it to the whales. It is your destiny.

Bitcoin has already been modified to increase reliability, security, etc.

Afaik there have been no hard forks of Bitcoin other than backing out a bug that Core created, which made the Trilemma whale furious and he said @gmaxwell is an idiot and is his slave. Afaik, there was a soft fork that had no opposition at all. I suppose the whales don't take a strong stance against soft forks which are only fixing reliability and security, and not modifying the economic game theory protocol.

Afaik, those modifications did not modify the free market immutability of the protocol.

Clearly though Blockstream has planned to hijack the protocol with SegWit. And the whales have stopped it.

Larger blocks will not be allowed.

I want bigger blocks.  I wanted them 2 years ago.

You'll never get them.

Scaling is impossible with larger blocks, because the orphan rate is an exponential function of the block size. BU is idiotic shit. Xthin has a game theory will enables larger hashrate and better connectivity miners to attack lesser miners.

Exponential shit does not scale. If you don't know this, then you don't even know basics of computer science.

There is no point to increasing the blocksize, because it isn't a scaling solution. There isn't any size of block that scales. You've got to scale off chain. But Blockstream is not going to be allowed to mutate Bitcoin's protocol.

That is the reality, whether you like it or not.

[Quickseller]

Roger Ver has been silent on this so far, I think. Or does anyone know if he responded to the news?

I have seen no evidence even presented that this is taking place. I also strongly suspect that there is astroturfing going on in Reddit regarding this issue -- there is simply too much discussion about this that is one sided, although maxwell is sensationalizing the issue.

Ver is likely waiting for all the facts to come out.

[Quickseller]

Network "upgrades" can still take place, and can be done via hardforks.

Not the case, many upgrades are incompatible with secret ASICBoosting. HF segwit with some small changes is compatible however.

If it were the case that ASICBoost makes all SF's impossible (doesn't seem like it TBH), having to do a HF for every upgrade would be the most painful thing ever. Take a look at how many SF there have been in the past 2 years.

I don't particularly like SFs anyway.

It is also my understanding there is a fairly small subset of SFs that are not compatible with ASICBOOST, and SFs could be tailored to ASICBOOST.

[The One]

My understanding from the paper is that the proposed segwit BIP will render obsolete only the covert version of ASICboost, not the overt portion.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfvvhvn/

We, in particular I, am not. This proposal does not prevent ASICBOOST, it only interferes with the covert version and only to the extent that the covert version is incompatible with protocol upgrades.

The argument for blocking ASICBOOST outright is that a patent is a government granted monopoly and restrictive licensing of ASICBOOST is likely to result in an eventual monopoly in mining (because difficulty adjustments push mining to a break even equilibrium, so potentially all unboosted miners would operate at a loss). I share the concern but I do not consider it to be as serious an issue as the disruption to protocol upgrade capability.

If any parties who would be adversely impacted by this proposal would like to speak up, I would love to hear their arguments. My guess is that they will not want to admit to patent infringement in public, and so they will not.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfvzklr/

You need to distinguish overt and covert boosting. The proposed BIP only addresses covert boosting.

If miners all used covert boosting Bitcoin could never gain, or gain only with significant increases complexity or loss of functionality many different protocol improvements, including:

(1) Segwit. (2) UTXO commitments. (non-delayed, at least) (3) Committed Bloom filters (4) Committed address indexes (5) STXO commitments (non-delayed). (6) Weak blocks (7) Most kinds of fraud proofs -- to state a few.

I don't fully understand how blocking the covert portion of ASICboost would affect mining performance on pre-existing hardware containing this feature. Whether you simply lose the increased efficiency (all S9's increase power consumption by 30%?) or reduces hashrate by 30%, or renders it obsolete altogether.

Either way, it is unlikely for Bitmain to side with any proposal that will effectively neuter their hardware and cost them 10's or more millions of dollars per year, and disrupt sales.  Especially if they are unable to openly admit that such technology is in fact in their ASIC's due to patent infringementedit: BMT has patent on technology in China.  Whether this is legitimate or ethical I have no idea.  So where does that leave us, omit their hashrate while taking block signalling into account and force a hardfork, or concede that you cannot circumvent a player like themselves from the table and find a compromise?

Bitmain has to decide between four choices. It's a gamble.
1. Stick to the Bitcore core and continue making money as present.
2. Do a hardfork with BU and if the community stays with Core then the value of BU would be low - Bitmain earns less money.
3. If community moves to BU then Bitmain will potentially make more money. However the Full Nodes count is in favour of Core. https://coin.dance/nodes
4. Mess with the whole Bitcoin economy, driving money elsewhere and Bitcoin price will sink below $100 - Bitmain will lose big time.

[Killerpotleaf]

Network "upgrades" can still take place, and can be done via hardforks.

Not the case, many upgrades are incompatible with secret ASICBoosting. HF segwit with some small changes is compatible however.

If it were the case that ASICBoost makes all SF's impossible (doesn't seem like it TBH), having to do a HF for every upgrade would be the most painful thing ever. Take a look at how many SF there have been in the past 2 years.

I don't particularly like SFs anyway.

It is also my understanding there is a fairly small subset of SFs that are not compatible with ASICBOOST, and SFs could be tailored to ASICBOOST.

i dont think it matters much if its soft or hard, from the sound of it any change to the header is going to break ASICBOOST

[Quickseller]

The same argument could have been framed around the move to ASIC from FPGA

No because that made the network more secure, as it required more work to attack it, ASICBoost doesn't do that.

ASICBOOST requires additional technology therefore makes it more difficult to perform some kind of double spend/51%/orphan attack.

Forcing miners to check more hashes to find a block is like telling a high school student to use long division when they can do the calculation in their head. Both ways get the same answer, and sometimes students might have to use long division anyway.

[alyssa85]

Apparently, Jihan Wu has been covertly using some patented exploit called asicboost to gain 20%+ efficiency on his hardware that’s incompatible with SegWit. It all makes sense now. Hope he gets his ass sued off.

Shills care to chime in?

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html

Why would he be sued?

Surely he can use whatever hardware he wants, and as a miner he doesn't have to support segwit if he doesn't want to. Isn't that what decentralisation means?

[The One]

Fucking over everyone using bitcoin is great... Potential user sees a group that's able to game the system with an advantage, and want's to run the other way. Was it illegal, who knows. Amoral, unethical, fucked up central banker shit absolutely.

 
Well I would agree that given the context of Bitcoin that everyone should be able to compete fairly, a patent should be unenforceable, but I wouldn't blame Jihan for trying to mine.  Everyone using ASICs is trying to gain an advantage.

Ridiculous imo to try to change the PoW... its the last thing Core should be doing.

Dude, it's considered an attack because whoever gets this efficiency eventually out competes all other miners, making mining centralization the end result.
If any of the components which make bitcoin a truly decentralized P2P network is captured by any means, in this case centralization, then bitcoin looses it's fundamental properties. That's why ASICBOOST is considered an attack.

thats why i said the patent should be unenforceable?   but lets be fair, if you blame Jihan for using legal measures to try to gain an advantage (patenting), why does Blockstream have sidechain patents and why are they employing the most influencial core devs who restrict blocksize while promoting off chain scaling, i mean, come on...

Just about perfect. The problem with development it needs to be done one at a time with Bitcoin due to its decentralised nature. Having so many factions at once trying to force their ideas is confusing many people and creating divisions. Bitcoin is consensus and can only consent to one change at a time.

[Quickseller]

Network "upgrades" can still take place, and can be done via hardforks.

Not the case, many upgrades are incompatible with secret ASICBoosting. HF segwit with some small changes is compatible however.

If it were the case that ASICBoost makes all SF's impossible (doesn't seem like it TBH), having to do a HF for every upgrade would be the most painful thing ever. Take a look at how many SF there have been in the past 2 years.

I don't particularly like SFs anyway.

It is also my understanding there is a fairly small subset of SFs that are not compatible with ASICBOOST, and SFs could be tailored to ASICBOOST.

i dont think it matters much if its soft or hard, from the sound of it any change to the header is going to break ASICBOOST

Right, so just do a HF that provides access to whatever new "features" and don't change the header -- or allow extra information at the end of the header, which is all that is necessary for ASICBOOST (per my understanding)

[iamnotback]

Bitcoin is decentralised and should not be dictated by anyone to their agenda/advantage. It it driven by consensus and not miners.

Lol. Your two sentences are mutual conflicting.

Bitcoin is consensus.

You're incompetent and should STFU. Now you are conflating the consensus of transaction ordering, with modifications to the protocol.

Bitcoin's protocol game theory is political clusterfuck, by design to protect the immutability of the protocol.

[anonymoustroll420]

I don't particularly like SFs anyway.

It is also my understanding there is a fairly small subset of SFs that are not compatible with ASICBOOST, and SFs could be tailored to ASICBOOST.

My understanding is messing with the merkle root breaks covert ASICBoosting. It does not matter if it is a SF or HF. This makes many network upgrades impossible, there is a list floating around of changes that are outright incompatible with covert ASICBoosting as they change the merkle root in a way that breaks this. Segwit however, can be done as a HF without messing with the merkel root.

[Killerpotleaf]

Network "upgrades" can still take place, and can be done via hardforks.

Not the case, many upgrades are incompatible with secret ASICBoosting. HF segwit with some small changes is compatible however.

If it were the case that ASICBoost makes all SF's impossible (doesn't seem like it TBH), having to do a HF for every upgrade would be the most painful thing ever. Take a look at how many SF there have been in the past 2 years.

I don't particularly like SFs anyway.

It is also my understanding there is a fairly small subset of SFs that are not compatible with ASICBOOST, and SFs could be tailored to ASICBOOST.

i dont think it matters much if its soft or hard, from the sound of it any change to the header is going to break ASICBOOST

Right, so just do a HF that provides access to whatever new "features" and don't change the header -- or allow extra information at the end of the header, which is all that is necessary for ASICBOOST (per my understanding)

right i guess we can always slap on a new header and only this is New header is the segwit-ASICBOOST-breaking-bit required.
this could be soft forked in.

making ASICBOOST still possible even with segwit.

its unclear tho, because the FUD going around is that ASICBOOST miners simply cant do pretty much any upgrades

[iamnotback]

its unclear tho, because the FUD going around is that ASICBOOST miners simply cant do pretty much any upgrades

The covert boost is incompatible with protocol "updowngrades". Overt boost is not incompatible. But overt boost requires paying patent fees.

Bitmain checkmated Blockstream. Lol.

(you guys are slow to assimilate all the facts)

[gentlemand]

would anyone of these patents hold up in court...

How many patents are pooed all over every single day in China? It must be tens or hundreds of thousands. Perhaps some deep pockets might be prepared to assert it but it's probably a dead idea before it even got going.

[Killerpotleaf]

I don't particularly like SFs anyway.

It is also my understanding there is a fairly small subset of SFs that are not compatible with ASICBOOST, and SFs could be tailored to ASICBOOST.

My understanding messing with the merkle root breaks covert ASIBoosting. It does not matter if it is a SF or HF. This makes many network upgrades impossible, there is a list floating around of changes that are outright incompatible with covert ASISBoosting as they change the merkle root in a way that breaks this. Segwit however, can be done as a HF without messing with the merkel root.

doesn't segwit make a complete second merkle tree inorder to be backward compatible??

ahhh the technical details are to vague , and i'm not sure we can trust core to give us a straight answer.

can we implement segwit and all these other SF's without breaking asicboost?

lets ask the BU devs!

[anonymoustroll420]

doesn't segwit make a complete second merkle tree inorder to be backward compatible??

ahhh the technical details are to vague , and i'm not sure we can trust core to give us a straight answer.

can we implement segwit and all these other SF's without breaking asicboost?

lets ask the BU devs!

Some changes are outright impossible, HF or SF.

Segwit in particular can be done as a HF that is compatible with secret ASICboost.

And ASICBoosting still works with segwit SF, but it has to be the overt method rather than the secret method, the overt method works with antminers.

[monsanto]

would anyone of these patents hold up in court...

How many patents are pooed all over every single day in China? It must be tens or hundreds of thousands. Perhaps some deep pockets might be prepared to assert it but it's probably a dead idea before it even got going.

Good point, wouldn't want to be the person trying to uphold a patent in china  . Ah the endless human struggle for those with lots of money and power to have even more money and more power.. same story since the beginning of time.. don't know why anyone would expect anything different with both sides.