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

[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.


 

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.

Hmm, Nope,

Show me a Patent # with a link.

The Patent Process is very expensive, even LTC dropped their patent a few years ago.
ASICBoost says Patent Pending, but no patent is on file , unless you have a link, the US Patent office did not list them at all.

 

[anonymoustroll420]

Hmm, Nope,

Show me a Patent # with a link.

The Patent Process is very expensive, even LTC dropped their patent a few years ago.
ASICBoost says Patent Pending, but no patent is on file , unless you have a link, the US Patent office did not list them at all.

 

Here is bitmains ASICBoost patent in China:
http://211.157.104.77:8080/sipo_EN/search/detail.do?method=view&parm=16b414c21a2f19d11b2c18401bcd1a5f183a19561ad91be11a501c4805792c231f5421b222572195236c20482755275723ca24be2221222525702494250d26c0274025822c3f29092a7c29a02d6d2d6f28fa2ed62bd12c892f482c34330947932f5c2c0a2ac731b9333c316c366534e7318235ee337934f1360837f03747371b371a34e231bf38f13b04390c3e0d3f6f39ea3dc63c573d6d3e683e4c26d918c33ffe3c523c273e354334405c47c545774302408e4423458d47b04688462b46a846c246aa436f47554bcc49784a2d

That one patent covers foundries in China, which make up ~80% of foundries in the world.

[andyatcrux]

I had started a topic that became a redundancy to this one so I've locked it. Will just join you guys here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1857167.0



So Jihan has oddly started coping with the latest revelations by posting repeated panda pictures.


https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/849837547891023873

This is getting weird.

[kiklo]

Still one big problem with Patents in China.  

https://www.chinabusinessreview.com/obtaining-and-enforcing-design-patents-in-china/

Many foreign companies believe that that the enforcement system in China simply does not work, that the PRC government is not truly committed to protecting intellectual property rights (IPR), and that rampant corruption at multiple levels stymies provincial and local efforts to stop counterfeiting.

 

[n0ne]

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

In my thinking he doesn't require a centralized system. He needs to have the controllability of the entire network in his hands. The first block mining with BU all of that happened unexpected and he tried to use it as an chance to keep hold of the control authority. Now everything went out of hands.

[kiklo]

I had started a topic that became a redundancy to this one so I've locked it. Will just join you guys here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1857167.0



So Jihan has oddly started coping with the latest revelations by posting repeated panda pictures.


https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/849837547891023873

This is getting weird.

Nah, LOL 

WhalePanda is the one posting the Panda Pics.

Once saw WhalePanda blow ~$50,000 on Pandacoin. 

 

[andyatcrux]

Jimmy Song live on MadBitcoins right now to discuss this news. (edit: oops, not live.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay4jDJSK3_Q

[iamnotback]

So we both agree that you will never do it?

Haha. Believe what ever nonsense you want to believe dimwit.

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

Except that I do it every time on crypto-currency speculation (except once). It's all documented.

[iamnotback]

Is @gmaxwell about to cause a HF war on Bitcoin with his nonsense?

No miner threshold is proposed in this document. It is specified as a block height flag day (height currently not specified, up for public discussion).

DANGER!

But couldn't miners and then whales treat it as a HF and refuse to mine on blocks that implemented the BIP?

In that case, would a block height trigger not put us in danger of a HF war?

A miner majority doesn't guarantee that whales can't sell the majority hashrate fork and buy the minority hashrate fork, thus elevating the hashrate of the one they choose and killing the one they don't allow.

I can see the butthurt for Gregory and he is getting desperate because he knows soon he is going to be working for the Chinese doing work on Litecoin.

[dinofelis]

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/

I remember from my courses in intellectual property that there's a fundamental difference between the way US and for instance, European patent offices work ; even though the end result is the same.  The US patent office actually accepts almost any patent that is not blatantly inappropriate (in form or in content).  It works mainly as a kind of attorney, where they act the fact that you've deposited a patent.  But it has no legal standing, apart from the fact of being deposited.  It is only on the very first case in court that the validity of the patent is really tested.
European patent offices are much more restrictive in their attribution of a patent, and they essentially only accept a patent if they think that it has good chances to be considered valid the first time it is tested in court.  
Ultimately, all patents are only tested in court.  Only, a US one is totally open and can just as well be rejected as accepted by the judge as valid ; in principle that's the same in Europe, except that the patent office already looked in much more detail at it, and so it has much more chance to be upheld in court if ever the patent was granted.  Although, in the end, it is always the judge who decides.

So it is probably much easier to patent the trademark "Face" in the US than in Europe, but that doesn't mean that it will be upheld in court.

[iamnotback]

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.

None of those issues are a problem. Empty blocks go away later. Litecoin offers a platform for experimentation. Bitcoin will remain immutable. You've been warned. Mine or hodl tokens on a fork, and you will lose.

He is not banning any kind of optimization.

Yes he is. He is banning the optimization of using secrecy to avoid patents and gain market share covertly. In short, he is blocking the free market. @gmaxwell has always believed the world would be better if he could be in charge of organizing it "better".

Bitcoin is not a government. It is a protocol. We trust the protocol not to change based on a democratic majority human opinion. The economic majority are the whales. They will not defect from the contract of the protocol and will defend it.

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.

You and your fellow communists are hereby banished to Litecoin forever. You will not be allowed back to Bitcoin. If you try to furk, you will get fucked. Watch and observe.

[anonymoustroll420]

I remember from my courses in intellectual property that there's a fundamental difference between the way US and for instance, European patent offices work ; even though the end result is the same.  The US patent office actually accepts almost any patent that is not blatantly inappropriate (in form or in content).  It works mainly as a kind of attorney, where they act the fact that you've deposited a patent.  But it has no legal standing, apart from the fact of being deposited.  It is only on the very first case in court that the validity of the patent is really tested.
European patent offices are much more restrictive in their attribution of a patent, and they essentially only accept a patent if they think that it has good chances to be considered valid the first time it is tested in court.  
Ultimately, all patents are only tested in court.  Only, a US one is totally open and can just as well be rejected as accepted by the judge as valid ; in principle that's the same in Europe, except that the patent office already looked in much more detail at it, and so it has much more chance to be upheld in court if ever the patent was granted.  Although, in the end, it is always the judge who decides.

So it is probably much easier to patent the trademark "Face" in the US than in Europe, but that doesn't mean that it will be upheld in court.

You are correct.

[anonymoustroll420]

None of those issues are a problem.

If miners had been using this tech prior to the p2sh (multisig) softfork, then that softfork would not have been possible in it's current form.

Yes he is. He is banning the optimization of using secrecy to avoid patents and gain market share covertly.

In this case, because the secret method makes miners do strange things, the secret method can likely still be detected on the blockchain once more is understood about it. A patent holder would have little problem doing this.

[iamnotback]

None of those issues are a problem.

If miners had been using this tech prior to the p2sh (multisig) softfork, then that softfork would not have been possible in it's current form.

So you are arguing that Core developers in all their perfect wisdom mucked with the game theory Satoshi made and now they want to muck with it some more.

Yes he is. He is banning the optimization of using secrecy to avoid patents and gain market share covertly.

The secret method can likely still be detected on the blockchain once more is understood about it. A patent holder would have little problem doing this.

You're turning Bitcoin into a government. It is the mucking precedent that is creeping in through the crack under the door.

Once the camel gets his nose under the edge of tent, run because the tent is fucked.

[Amph]

probably fake and it doesn't make sense, if anyone use that boost it's like they are doing nothing, and the result would be the same earnig as before

also the only boost you can get is by adding or having better hardware, via software there is no optimization that can be done anymore on the mining scene

just look at this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1843662.0, cgminer for bitcoin asic, is as optimized as it get there is no room for anything

[Finksy]

He is not banning any kind of optimization.

Yes he is. He is banning the optimization of using secrecy to avoid patents and gain market share covertly. In short, he is blocking the free market. @gmaxwell has always believed the world would be better if he could be in charge of organizing it "better".

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfwb8nu/?context=3

It is specifically designed to not cripple the hardware; at worst it would return it to normal efficiency. (And the BIP takes an effort to point out that it does not degrade the optimization in general, only in covert case that damages protocol extensions).

Since the specifics of any usage are secret its possible that there is some interaction that I don't know about. I'd be very interested in feedback otherwise.

Doesn't sound to be exactly the case. I think it will be good for everyone to wait and see what Core suggests as far as implementing these suggestions, and what Jihan has to say on the topic. All we have are deleted tweets (possibly fake) on his behalf at this point:
https://twitter.com/neo_blogr/status/849803261444067328

[anonymoustroll420]

probably fake and it doesn't make sense, if anyone use that boost it's like they are doing nothing, and the result would be the same earnig as before

also the only boost you can get is by adding or having better hardware, via software there is no optimization that can be done anymore on the mining scene

just look at this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1843662.0, cgminer for bitcoin asic, is as optimized as it get there is no room for anything

Read here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.00575

[andyatcrux]

Guess we now know why KNCminer went kaput. 

[Dorky]

Once the camel gets his nose under the edge of tent, run because the tent is fucked.

What's the sound of the tent getting fucked?
"*flap*... *flap*... *flappppp*..... *FLAPPPPPPPPPPPP*......!!"

[iamnotback]

wait...
if his asicboost is rendered invalid, doesn't that make all his ASIC+asicboost hardware useless ( totally useless) ?

As I understand the whitepaper, yes it would because the logic gates for avoiding the optimization have been eliminated which makes it 20% more efficient.

All those who own Bitmain hardware for mining SHA2 coins, must fight SegWit.

Note someone disagrees with my assumption and I am asking for clarification:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfvz5g2/

@gmaxwell assumes but isn't sure:

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

And another interesting comment:

They just lose the advantage they have over their own customers.

Because if Bitmain can't do it covertly then if they either can't or can reconfigure via s/w to do it overtly then their customers (who have the same boost capable hardware) will either not be at an efficiency disadvantage or they demand that they receive the software to also be able to do overtly.

But what if Bitmain release the s/w for covert boosting anonymously, then their customers might fight the BIP, because their customers might reside in jurisdictions where the Western patent applies.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Chinese miners turn on the overt version after this

I wouldn't be surprised for them to turn on the covert version!

A HF war seems possible if this BIP is activated on a flag day.