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

[iamnotback]

1) Its patented and selectively available, in a competitive industry like mining it gives huge advantage and has lead to centralisation of mining and could lead to even more centralisation. Centralisation of mining is not good for Bitcoin you agree? We should act to prevent centralisation of mining right?

PoW is winner-take-all anyway.

The free market has to deal with patents. They are part of the landscape. Putting some humans in charge of deciding what is fair and not fair competition is turning Bitcoin into a government.

2) The miner that has benefited from centralisation is now blocking a hugely beneficial protocol upgrade and capacity increase that is for the benefit of all Bitcoin holders. By blocking this they are improving their own financial position at the expense of holders and centralising bitcoin to their benefit further.

You make assumptions which might not be true. Blockstream fucking up Bitcoin turning it into an experimental blockchain for every whizbang feature and removing the immutability of Bitcoin, will remove what makes Bitcoin unique from all the altcoins.

Bitcoin is a reliable store-of-value. It is not a toaster or anything else you might want it to be.

[1715676443]

1715676443

[FiendCoin]

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.

Having an exploit and using it is one thing. Especially when that thing is a sizeable advantage. But an entirely different thing to manipulate the environment, in order to maintain that advantage. You should evolve, not.stagnate everyone else.  I hate this about DC politics, hate to see it in BTC as well

Tell M$ that!

Here's something else.

If Bitmain sold miners to other pools without telling them how to implement their exploit (or tell them about it at all) and THEN blocked upgrades to Bitcoin to protect their advantage, they would've intentionally ripped off their customers.

[dinofelis]

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.

Maybe the ASIC circuitry can be patented.  I would highly doubt that the mathematics of using a cryptographical scheme more cleverly, can be patented.  After all, this is just using a smarter way of scanning through the hash space.  It is a bit as if you could take a patent on the fact that you don't have to re-compute the Merkle hash each time you want to use a new header nonce.  That's all there is to it: not re-doing a computation that is not needed in a well-known cryptographic weakness in the Merkle-Damgard construction (extension attack).  The idea is that in the iteration of the hash compression function, you don't have to re-do the previous hash calculations if only the last block changes (or if you want to add an extra block, hence the name "extension attack").
Depending on the application, this extension attack is a problem or not.  For a normal hash application, it isn't a problem. But it can speed up attacks (and hence, proof of work).
This is well known and in several crypto intro books.
It is just one more "error" in the whole of bitcoin's cryptography.

[Jungian]

you got some balls man!  

And then I will go back to my programming cave and work on replacing PoW with something that isn't a winner-take-all.

Can we file this under the list of other things you say you will do, but never actually do?

[Killerpotleaf]

FUD.  Asicboost been known about for a long time and Bitmain holds the patent in China.

[very long link]
Just more distractions from king Gregory.

your link looks fishy no hostname? whatever
They Patented this?
so only they can produce chips with this hack-like-optimization?
we knew about this for how long?

Still nothing from the shills? Come on guys, I want your opinions  

BU shill here.

this is the free market at work... if you want to mine less effectively go ahead and mine with your CPU.
Its ALMOST as if they created a new chip that simply mines bitcoin more effectively and all of you are like WELL THAT'S UNFAIR!

2 issues

1) Its patented and selectively available, in a competitive industry like mining it gives huge advantage and has lead to centralisation of mining and could lead to even more centralisation. Centralisation of mining is not good for Bitcoin you agree? We should act to prevent centralisation of mining right?


2) The miner that has benefited from centralisation is now blocking a hugely beneficial protocol upgrade and capacity increase that is for the benefit of all Bitcoin holders. By blocking this they are improving their own financial position at the expense of holders and centralising bitcoin to their benefit further.

1)the validity of the patent has not been confirmed to me.
and the tech APPEARS to be openly available to anyone that wants it ( at some price i assume )  https://www.asicboost.com/ for a year.
should we punish miners that bought this tech in order to improve there service to us ( hashing faster )?? IDK

2) the claim that segwit breaks asicboosting appears to be a lie, there is a separate BIP that aims to break asicboosting.
clarification is needed.


it going to be interesting to see how this story evolves... But I find it Strange that its been over a year, and today its being pushed again...

[iamnotback]

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.

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

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

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.

User activated soft fork will be the likely solution

Here is your warning.

Myself and every other smart Bitcoin hodler will happily join the whales to take all the BTC from the retards who join the UASF either as a miner or a token hodler:

The whales of Bitcoin will bankrupt those who mine on some democratic attempt to fork the protocol without unanimous support. I had already explained in the past days how the whales can do this (and profit from doing by taking BTC away from all those fools who go on the democratic fork).

...

The largest whale of Bitcoin who has all the other significant whales in his WoT doesn't not do Twitter. You can find him at trilemma.com

He was also the DAO attacker.

And he thinks Gmaxwell is a duplicitous idiot and told him that he is a slave.

Y'all will be crying to moma.

[iamnotback]

2) the claim that segwit breaks asicboosting appears to be a lie, there is a separate BIP that aims to break asicboosting.
clarification is needed.

If we can believe @gmaxwell, then SegWit breaks covert boosting, not overt boosting. This new BIP proposal breaks covert boosting without activating SegWit.

[iamnotback]

you got some balls man!  

And then I will go back to my programming cave and work on replacing PoW with something that isn't a winner-take-all.

Can we file this under the list of other things you say you will do, but never actually do?

Can you tell me some things of significance you've claimed to do and have actually done?

It is easy for you to talk some shit, but if we compare our performance records, it will get more interesting.

(and I bet you aren't battling Tuberculosis)

I can make a list of such very significant things I've claimed to do and have done, such as for example the claim that I had invested all my BTC into LTC at $6.50 and the result of nearly doubling my BTC value thus far, because I actually did what I was claiming and backed up my prediction that Bitcoin would not break out of a range until Litecoin gets SegWit and catches up in terms of the second hump of price in technology adoption.

[iamnotback]

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.

Maybe the ASIC circuitry can be patented.  I would highly doubt that the mathematics of using a cryptographical scheme more cleverly, can be patented.  After all, this is just using a smarter way of scanning through the hash space.  It is a bit as if you could take a patent on the fact that you don't have to re-compute the Merkle hash each time you want to use a new header nonce.  That's all there is to it: not re-doing a computation that is not needed in a well-known cryptographic weakness in the Merkle-Damgard construction (extension attack).  The idea is that in the iteration of the hash compression function, you don't have to re-do the previous hash calculations if only the last block changes (or if you want to add an extra block, hence the name "extension attack").
Depending on the application, this extension attack is a problem or not.  For a normal hash application, it isn't a problem. But it can speed up attacks (and hence, proof of work).
This is well known and in several crypto intro books.
It is just one more "error" in the whole of bitcoin's cryptography.

And by trying to block covert applications of technology, @gmaxwell is proposing to make it more difficult for others to compete with patents.

[anonymoustroll420]

Maybe the ASIC circuitry can be patented.  I would highly doubt that the mathematics of using a cryptographical scheme more cleverly, can be patented.

Yes, cryptography can be patented.

[anonymoustroll420]

And by trying to block covert applications of technology, @gmaxwell is proposing to make it more difficult for others to compete with patents.

He is proposing making the covert way of doing this one optimization impossible, because the covert way of this optimization makes many kinds of network upgrades harder and causes miners to do strange things, like occasionally mine empty blocks, reorder txes or include never-seen-before txes.

He is not banning any kind of optimization.

Personally I think these optimizations should be made impossible to do, it's disengenous to call them efficiencies, more like shortcuts, as these kinds of optimizations do not contribute to the security of the network as they can be made impossible to do so that attackers cannot use them either.

[kiklo]

Maybe the ASIC circuitry can be patented.  I would highly doubt that the mathematics of using a cryptographical scheme more cleverly, can be patented.

Yes, cryptography can be patented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2
The SHA-2 family consists of six hash functions with digests (hash values)
that are 224, 256, 384 or 512 bits: SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512, SHA-512/224, SHA-512/256.

The SHA-2 family of algorithms are patented in US patent 6829355.
The United States has released the patent under a royalty-free license.
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=6829355&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP#

 

[ASHLIUSZ]

Maybe the ASIC circuitry can be patented.  I would highly doubt that the mathematics of using a cryptographical scheme more cleverly, can be patented.

Yes, cryptography can be patented.

It can be patented, already one has applied for the patent of about 70 service platforms functioning based on the blockchain technology. If he ignores someone else will be trying to get patent. As quoted the algorithmic calculations could never be patented but the technology could get patented.

[anonymoustroll420]

The United States has released the patent under a royalty-free license.

Exactly. It was patented and for a while nobody but the government could use it, but the US government eventually decided to release it for free, they were under no obligation to do that.

[dinofelis]

Maybe the ASIC circuitry can be patented.  I would highly doubt that the mathematics of using a cryptographical scheme more cleverly, can be patented.

Yes, cryptography can be patented.

I know.  But you cannot patent a way to USE a public cryptographic scheme if that is well-known knowledge.  There's nothing special in using the publicly known extention attack of the Merkle-Damgard construction.  

[anonymoustroll420]

I know.  But you cannot patent a way to USE a public cryptographic scheme if that is well-known knowledge.  There's nothing special in using the publicly known extention attack of the Merkle-Damgard construction.  

You can pretty much patent/copyright/trademark anything you want. Facebook has a trademark on the word "face": https://techcrunch.com/2010/11/23/patent-office-agrees-to-facebooks-face-trademark/

In general, the person who discovers the scheme can patent it, unless you're facebook and have lawyers able to come up with some insane argument.

There is a guy who has a patent for uploading files to the internet and regularly sues multi-national companies for breaching his patent.

[kiklo]

https://www.stopfakes.gov/article?id=Is-My-US-Patent-Good-in-Other-Countries

Patents are territorial and must be filed in each country where protection is sought.

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.

US Patent does not mean crap in other countries and Vice-A-Versa.


 

[anonymoustroll420]

https://www.stopfakes.gov/article?id=Is-My-US-Patent-Good-in-Other-Countries

Patents are territorial and must be filed in each country where protection is sought.

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.

US Patent does not mean crap in other countries and Vice-A-Versa.


 

Right but there are only a handful of foundries in the world that can make ASIC's, so it's not difficult to patent the tech in each jurisdiction. ASICBoost appears to be patented in most jurisdictions that have foundries, though each patent seems to be owned by a different company.

[Sadlife]

So that's why Jihan is so oppose with the segwit concept.
His using this exploit for maximum effiency for his own BU network so that all the transactions fees will benefit him. Does he wants a centralized network?
Good game well played

[Jungian]

you got some balls man!  

And then I will go back to my programming cave and work on replacing PoW with something that isn't a winner-take-all.

Can we file this under the list of other things you say you will do, but never actually do?

Can you tell me some things of significance you've claimed to do and have actually done?

It is easy for you to talk some shit, but if we compare our performance records, it will get more interesting.

(and I bet you aren't battling Tuberculosis)

I can make a list of such very significant things I've claimed to do and have done, such as for example the claim that I had invested all my BTC into LTC at $6.50 and the result of nearly doubling my BTC value thus far, because I actually did what I was claiming and backed up my prediction that Bitcoin would not break out of a range until Litecoin gets SegWit and catches up in terms of the second hump of price in technology adoption.

So we both agree that you will never do it?

Betting on a price and being right happens 50% of the time. It's as significant as flipping a coin.