...
I have been away for awhile and am not really interested in continuing this discussion
especially since it seems the community has moved forward, but I wish to make two points.
First, as I read your 1 through 5 sections, I didn't see where you explained a scenario where
Jihan would in good faith agree to implementing SegWit Softfork followed by a simple 2MB
hardfork knowing he would be sacrificing his ASICBoost potential, which would have been the
HK agreement's end result.
The logic doesn't make sense to me that Jihan would be arguing for everyone to use it now,
when he was a party to an agreement originally that would have damaged it outright.
You didn't provide a reasonable example (that I saw). So my premise question
is still unaddressed. But that no longer matters now since the community has dropped the
ball here and has taken no action, that I see so far.
Second, I really only want to comment about Section 6 of your reply since I think it highlights
the actual issue this this discussion and the difference between us.
...
6.
Let's say I am now exploring the idea that anything is possible in this universe, after all nobody can be certain what the miners were really thinking, unless they are the miners themselves.
So I ignore all the reasons above, I ignore everything Blockstream/Core have been doing, and play logic gymnastics to narrow down onto a single possibility, for example, your conclusion.
The problem then is, when I do that, I have to overlook so many things that I am accepting it only because nothing is impossible.
That means I also have to believe in infinite other fringe possibilities, including all the plausible as well as nut job conspiracies.
And this is what puzzled me with your conclusion, your conclusion requires such an extreme open mind to explore or accept, yet, you weren't offering it as a possibility, you were using your conclusion to attack other people's conclusions, conclusions that had more evidence and reasoning than yours.
For example when I offered the link that someone on twitter looked into recent blockchain activity and found no evidence of ASICBoost usage, that was just to indicate my conclusion had more supporting evidence than yours.
But you didn't take that evidence with an open mind, you went for insults, when your conclusion had even less evidence.
You were also dismissive to more probable possibilities, such as Jihan signed an agreement that would work against ASICBoost simply because he didn't care to use ASICBoost at all.
It seemed to me that you have already decided what the reality was, and you were on a mission to ignore all evidence and reason that would contradict your reality.
Ignoring all the trolling, it wasn't so much about 'proving something or someone wrong', but more about which conclusion has more evidence and reasoning behind it, it was more about not willing to narrow down on one fringe possibility, while ignoring more obvious and evidence supported possibilities.
This is the para I only really wanted to address because I think it is the most important.
Though we disagree as to the reality of this overall issue and any conclusions that can be
reasonably determined, there is one thing I want to point out that you are overlooking.
You are trying to come to an answer that can not be answered without a final in depth
report on AntPool's or other miner's past block work. You take the standpoint that since
there is no evidence, then it doesn't exist. That line of reasoning is not appropriate here,
especially within the Bitcoin space where we must assume all internal parties are untruthful.
Bitcoin was designed in an attempt to "tame the untamable, while anticipating the
unanticipatable". When you say "
your conclusion requires such an extreme open mind to
explore or accept" what you are really saying is that you will not anticipate the possibilities
and attempt to account for those before it becomes a reality. You will only react after
there is a revelation or problem.
Satoshi designed this system and attempted to anticipate every possible flaw
that he could before releasing the Whitepaper. After the fact, some were found and he
attempted to correct those unanticipated issues, but he did not say things like "I will
only fix that until there is evidence it is a problem" nor portrayed the mind frame of
such. The 1MB Cap is an obvious fix to something that wouldn't have occurred if
"Nakamoto Consensus" did not fail. When Satoshi added the 1MB Cap, it's purpose
was to prevent an unfavorable future outcome. It was an anticipation derived
on no evidence, yet based on the realization of something unanticipated originally.
When you make the argument that my conclusions are based on less evidence then your
conclusions, I would normally agree in any other average discussion. But since we
participate in this type of system where the true purpose is to survive attacks from those
who wish to destroy us, whether internally (miners, nodes, bugs, exploits) or externally
(devs, banks, govs, economies), then evidence in such a manner is not necessary. This
is not plain dry science, this is anticipations and extrapolations for the purpose of
uncovering possible failures or pitfalls that may be used against the system in the future.
Anticipations without evidence are like vaccines. It may or may not be an issue now, but
if it is later, you are protected from that attacking strain (in theory).
That is your misunderstanding of my statements. You are trying to prove that AntPool/
Bitmain/Jihan/etc are innocent by claiming there is no evidence of wrongdoing, but in
our reality within the Bitcoin system, that is not appropriate evidence. When new
possible exploits come to light, whether actually occurring or not, if they are in theory
possible, they are equivalent and should be dealt with asap, as if they are or have occurred.
I'm not saying AntPool is covert ASICBoosting, what I am saying is that they have the
capability and we are now aware it is possible to do, so thus we should all agree to patch
this. When BitMain/AntPool, says to do otherwise and open for all miners, though there is
no direct evidence of their use, it does not follow the normal course that all true Bitcoiners
should follow to protect the security of the network. In a plain sense, their response was
inappropriate and thus suspicious due to its irregularity.
You are arguing for a reactionary Bitcoin development, when the system and the community
really needs to be proactive. In this Bitcoin proactive sense, the only evidence that proves
something can not be done is what is important and true. If we can not determine it can
not be done, it must be assumed to be occurring now or soon to be doable and we must take
steps to prevent such. Since Bitcoin is essentially a new form of encased circular security for
money tokens, that would be the logical action. Reacting after evidence exists does not prevent
failure, it almost ensures it. When Japan was publicly bombed with atomics, it was too late for
them to make any anticipations or corrections. The deed was done and the evidence caused
their defeat and surrender.
Anything that is conceivable and is programmatically possible that can exploit certain aspects
of the system, should be patched prior to those exploits full effect. I advocate for changes
now that may help prevent Quantum Computing affecting Bitcoin in different areas. Many
experts in the community and users on this forum have stated multiple times that there is
no issue now and that it is decades away. This is reactionary and based on assumptions of
publicly disclosed material for the masses to intentionally consume. I disagree with their
conclusions, just as I disagree that ASICBoost is not an issue. In my belief, both are
anticipatable and thus possible now, so action should be taken asap, if possible to do so now.
If we were properly proactive, ASICBoost would have been patched and prevented as soon
as it was known. Instead, we are now reactionary. Due to this issue languishing for so long,
it has exacerbated to the point in which it could be performed in a covert manner that
has the secondary effect of preventing specific future protocol changes. In theory, any miners
actually using ASICBoost in this manner is enforcing a "Temporary Soft Fork" directly to the
Coinbase Data.
If all miners begin to use ASICBoost, they have effectively created a new protocol limitation
and restriction for future protocol ideas and changes. This is the first time, that I am aware of,
that a miner's motivation grew so out of whack, that they decided that since mining tech will
soon slow or stop with chip innovations, they will exploit the PoW algo directly, in order to
continue their growth. So for example, it is like when playing the game "monopoly" and there
are no more properties and the game is going into a form of stagnation that takes many turns
till a winner is declared, so instead, a few players decide to bend or break the rules that made
the game worthy of playing originally.
That is now a new game, with new rules, created by the rule breakers. The only reason the
game doesn't end outright or linger on, is that the rule breakers request that everyone
breaks the rules with them. This mentality leads the future of mining into code and algo
exploitation instead of technological innovation. Instead of Bitcoin leading the world in new
tech potentially, it decided (through the miners) that we will attack ourselves internally till
there is nothing left. That is the anticipated future that Bitmain/Antpool advocates for by
allowing ASICBoosting as common practice. Eventually, an unpatched exploitable PoW will
not be much of a security mechanism. The rules are rules for a reason. Everything can be
exploited till there is nothing left to exploit. This precedent should not be allowed to fully
manifest and this is why Bitmain/AntPool's response is shortsighted and only derived to
protect the patent holders. If it was for the betterment of the community, they wouldn't
be advocating it. At best, it brings an end to the PoW system faster than through a natural
evolution of time and innovation.
That is what you are missing from my statements. Either way, I do not wish to re-argue
all the separate issues and points that we have discussed prior. I only wanted to address
that when you say that "
... it wasn't so much about 'proving something or
someone wrong', but more about which conclusion has more evidence and reasoning
behind it, it was more about not willing to narrow down on one fringe possibility, while
ignoring more obvious and evidence supported possibilities." my point was that
you want a "conclusive answer" that could never be known unless you are Jihan. My
answers or "fringe possibilities" are protectionary to the whole system and not for a single
entity. In comparison, your argument, which is an argument that there is no evidence, risks
the community and the future system on the word of a human being (Jihan) and a
corporate press release.
When you disagree with my reasoning and decide that you will be lead by human assurances
and "no evidence is proof of nonexistance" in this space, you are doing the opposite of what
Satoshi and Bitcoin was created for. You are not supposed to trust the miners, only their
collective independently verified work. If you need to trust a single party or their word,
then it is automatically an incorrect answer. It is always a lie, since it must be. That is the
lesson of the Byzantine Generals problem. Trusting any entity, whether human or corporation,
outside of the decentralized independently verified ledger is always a lie and has no place within
the true Bitcoin community. Encouraging the opposite is an insult to what Satoshi's Bitcoin system
was attempting to correct and instruct. The lesson is, all humans are bad and will destroy, unless
we bind ourselves to common rules of good, that we can independently confirm are being upheld
by all participating parties. When something is revealed, like covert ASICBoost, it is a breach of
our binding oaths of common rules of good. Someone has gone astray with the potential to
destroy the whole over the long run.
This is what you have failed to recognize in my statements. I'm advocating for a balanced
system secured by trustlessness and you are advocating that certain people can be taken
at their word. Your concern is too evidence based when the important issue is not proving
it has occurred or not or what is likely or not. The true issue is whether it is possible or not.
And if it is possible, should we patch it now, or suffer the anticipated consequences later?
I advocate we patch it now before it gets out of control. Unfortunately, in my absence,
nothing has occurred along those lines, that I have found/read so far. UPDATE: I have
found no movement of community members who are publicly organized and lobbying for
a patch. Though, I have been advised that Jihan has made a statement recently saying he
is open to accepting a patch that would prevent ASICBoost.
(I took the time to write all this to explain my reasoning to the best of my layman ability,
on the basis of the statements in section 6. I thought it was important to explain why I
disagreed with it and have no intention of bumping this thread to continue the overall
argument. I feel that Section 6 is not an appropriate viewpoint that users/devs/ or
miners should be using when thinking about Bitcoin and it's future. In fact, I think
that form of thinking prevents innovation and new avenues of thought.)
Edit: Some spelling errors and Update in last para.
