Why ASIC BOOST is necessary.

[dinofelis]

I agree with you, but then what are these UASF, these "all users want segwit" and all the rest ?

UASF works by nodes enforcing the new rules themselves on a given date. The number of nodes is irrelevant, it is the amount of the economy running UASF that matters.

I must not understand the mechanism of a UASF then.  Any pointers ?

That was my point.  If you desperately don't want to signal for segwit on these web sites, you need to run "something else".

No you don't, just change your uacomment. That is what every BU node that is currently online is doing (the real ones are all down).

Yes, that's what I mean, you cheat on the name, but the name has to exist !  So some unimportant buggy version needs to exist so that you can pretend to be running it !

[anonymoustroll420]

I must not understand the mechanism of a UASF then.  Any pointers ?

http://www.uasf.co/

To sum it up the way BIP148 UASF works:

Businesses and exchanges all agree to activate segwit at a certain date. Any non-segwit signalling blocks mined after that date will be ignored by those businesses/exchanges nodes. If the miners mining non-segwit signalling blocks want to spend the coins they earned at those businesses/exchanges, they won't be able to, they mined blocks that the businesses think are invalid. So the miners not signalling segwit will be mining worthless coins and will be forced to signal segwit.

The risk of this is if not enough businesses and exchanges support it, there will be a split. This particular proposal is also quite risky even with a lot of support. There are better UASF proposal going around that are less risky. But the general idea of UASF is that the Bitcoin economy forces the new rules.

To gauge UASF support you would need to ask businesses if they support it or not. Node count's are not so useful.

UASF is not a new idea. It was how all forks were done prior to 2012. There was no such thing as miner signalling back then. Ultimately all forks are enforced by the economy anyway, it's just miners "activate" them.

Yes, that's what I mean, you cheat on the name, but the name has to exist !  So some unimportant buggy version needs to exist so that you can pretend to be running it !

Just make up a name like "FuckSegwit" and convince a bunch of people to use it. Eventually when enough nodes use it the node counter websites will add it.

[dinofelis]

I must not understand the mechanism of a UASF then.  Any pointers ?

http://www.uasf.co/

To sum it up the way BIP148 UASF works:

Businesses and exchanges all agree to activate segwit at a certain date. Any non-segwit signalling blocks mined after that date will be ignored by those businesses/exchanges nodes. If the miners mining non-segwit signalling blocks want to spend the coins they earned at those businesses/exchanges, they won't be able to, they mined blocks that the businesses think are invalid. So the miners not signalling segwit will be mining worthless coins and will be forced to signal segwit.

The risk of this is if not enough businesses and exchanges support it, there will be a split. This particular proposal is also quite risky even with a lot of support. There are better UASF proposal going around that are less risky. But the general idea of UASF is that the Bitcoin economy forces the new rules.

To gauge UASF support you would need to ask businesses if they support it or not. Node count's are not so useful.

UASF is not a new idea. It was how all forks were done prior to 2012. There was no such thing as miner signalling back then. Ultimately all forks are enforced by the economy anyway, it's just miners "activate" them.

What's the difference between a UASF and a core directly activated soft fork then ? I mean, if you download the node code version with the activated fork in it, of course you will only see the blocks that correspond to the new rules, and if all exchanges do that too, then of course miners have to follow if they hope to sell their coinbase coins on that exchange.  

Most probably, the ETH/ETC split, and the exchanges realizing the lucrative thing of listing both of them, must have scared the hell out of this form of centralized soft forking

Yes, that's what I mean, you cheat on the name, but the name has to exist !  So some unimportant buggy version needs to exist so that you can pretend to be running it !

Just make up a name like "FuckSegwit" and convince a bunch of people to use it. Eventually when enough nodes use it the node counter websites will add it.

   After crypto coins on exchanges without a block chain, now full node wallets without code  Things get more and more virtual in crypto land !

[X7]

Food for thought

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/674nln/if_i_was_still_mining_and_i_found_out_that_my/

[The One]

Current mining profit margins are roughly 1%.

ASICBOOST increases power efficiency 20%.

That increases profit margin to roughly 20%.

That is a two thousand percent increase in profit margin for anyone using an ASICBOOST compatible miner.

That, and that alone, is the only reason anyone would be in favor of it.  It offers a monumental competitive advantage over other miners.

If this is distributed to all miners, it nullify the advantage of other miners.  I also believe asicboost is really necessary because it renders the one who own it cheaper electricity to run the miner.  But if all miners use this then the advantage is nullified since each will add another 20% of hashing power to meet the maximum capacity of their electricity.

The only thing here is that this was kept secret to all miners until someone discovered that it was beeing used covertly.

That's more or less it.  But it wasn't kept secret, it was published in 2016.  Now, what miners put in their devices, or what their manufacturers put in their devices is their affair, no ?  

That said, I have my doubts that mining is a 1% margin affair   It wouldn't be worth it.  Too few return on investment.  Better go to the stock market instead of buying mining equipment, no ?

Profit margin of 1% is possible is the miner sold the BTC straightaway. However in the real world, a company investing does a ROI calculation based on 1 to 5 years period. The profit margin would also be calculated based and expenditure v income. Now the income takes into account the inflation that pushes up the prices of goods. A company can predict selling at a higher price in the future based on idiotic governments fiat policy. If a miner were to do a ROI properly then it does not have to sell all BTC straightaway. Some can be stored and sold, hopefully, at a higher price in the future. Thus the profit margin will be higher than 1%.

[dinofelis]

Profit margin of 1% is possible is the miner sold the BTC straightaway. However in the real world, a company investing does a ROI calculation based on 1 to 5 years period. The profit margin would also be calculated based and expenditure v income. Now the income takes into account the inflation that pushes up the prices of goods. A company can predict selling at a higher price in the future based on idiotic governments fiat policy. If a miner were to do a ROI properly then it does not have to sell all BTC straightaway. Some can be stored and sold, hopefully, at a higher price in the future. Thus the profit margin will be higher than 1%.

The difficulty I have with that view, is that if the "current margin is 1%", then that's the real margin.  If you think that bitcoin's going to rise in price, there's no reason to MINE it if you can BUY it, so all future expectation of benefit from holding the mined bitcoin over selling it right away is fiat/bitcoin arbitrage but is not part of the margin from specifically mining it.

What I mean is this:
Suppose that I have a total cost of mining (everything included) of $100,- and I have now worth an amount X in BTC, what I can sell for $101,-.  That's what a 1% margin means, right ?  Whether that amount X will now be worth $120 next month, doesn't make my margin of mining increase to 20%.  Because I could also have bought bitcoin directly for $100 instead of spend it on mining.  I would then hold now $119 worth.  So the difference between "mining" with $100,- or directly speculating on the rise of BTC, only makes for a difference of 1%.

[2112]

I thought that was more or less established, so I took that for granted.  But as I said, my argument was not so much for asic boost by itself (I only looked at the theoretical calculation scheme without imagining that its hardware implementation would be seriously different from the standard way of doing so, as I said, i took that for granted), my argument was this:

"IF you consider asic boost such a phenomenal gain in efficiency that one could call it "an exploit" or "cheating" or whatever, THEN it is entirely wrong to stop miners from using it, because its mere existence lowers PoW security"

Note that the "if ... then ..." is also correct when applied to "if false, then false".

This thread was nothing else but a reaction to my argument being censored by people claiming that asic boost is an exploit and should not be used by miners, as it "lowered proof of work".  In as much as technically, asic boost is not doing anything, then it is not an exploit, and in as much as it does, then it should be used.  

As I said, I took for granted that the gain was of the order of 20%, because that's the amount of raw calculations that one has to do less. I didn't consider that there were technical problems in realizing this, but that doesn't alter the argument that or it is insignificant (and then there's no reason to accuse those trying to implement it to cheat or to exploit) OR it is significant (and then my argument is that it should be used by all means).

Now you know first hand how does it feel when you fall hook-line-sinker  for propaganda and become and "useful idiot". This is exactly what you did and yet you persist in spreading the propaganda.

The real way to recover out of it is to admit that you have been had and cease to participate in propaganda operations. Any further arguments that continue to "ASS U ME" (made an ASS of U and ME) will show that you seriously lack introspection.

Edit: start by changing the title of this thread to something less authoritative.

[2112]

What I highlighted in your post from back then is a fundamental observation on your part I think.  But it would normally also lead to sufficient distributed antagonism so that no important changes can ever happen to the protocol.   The fact that there is now this immense pressure for segwit and LN means that this got centralized, no ? (in other words, that a non-immutable colluding consensus over change has been found, and obviously under the "leadership" of one or a few colluding entities pushing for it).

Not it "got centralized". It always "was centralized", "is centralized" and the "central controlling authorities" are resisting the pressure to decentralize.

Also, changes happened and will continue to happen to the protocol. Protocol is being kept intentionally vague, under-defined, long standing bugs aren't getting fixed. This is a normal, regular way to keep the current authorities in continuing control.

Perhaps you've earlier fallen for the past propaganda of "Bitcoin is set in stone" or "Bitcoin is defined by mathematics"?

[dinofelis]

Now you know first hand how does it feel when you fall hook-line-sinker  for propaganda and become and "useful idiot". This is exactly what you did and yet you persist in spreading the propaganda.

I'm dense here, but what propaganda are you talking about ?  The propaganda is by the core people in order to vilify the miners so that they can keep the power and appear as a victim, right ?  Or are you talking about something else ?

That said, I'm pretty clear about me having been a useful idiot as a crypto anarchist, having fallen for the joke that bitcoin turned out to be, and I set out to understand why bitcoin was different from what I initially thought is was, yes.

Nevertheless, the phenomenon in itself is a fascinating thing, which is why I'm somehow addicted to trying to understand it for the intellectual fun of it amongst other reasons.

The real way to recover out of it is to admit that you have been had and cease to participate in propaganda operations. Any further arguments that continue to "ASS U ME" (made an ASS of U and ME) will show that you seriously lack introspection.

Edit: start by changing the title of this thread to something less authoritative.

Why would I ?  It catches on, no ?  The main goal of this catchy title was to indicate that it doesn't pay to censor me, but it can maybe serve other purposes. As long as I don't get *what* propaganda I'm spreading, I cannot find out whether I'd like to continue doing so or not, no ? 

[dinofelis]

Perhaps you've earlier fallen for the past propaganda of "Bitcoin is set in stone" or "Bitcoin is defined by mathematics"?

There never was such propaganda.  The claim has always been that bitcoin was going to evolve technologically, was going to implement a lot of new features, was going to change a lot of things, like the block rewards, the block period, the signature scheme, the total amount of bitcoins, ....
I'm joking, but from the moment that you can "evolve" all these things are of course possible, so I always found the claim contradictory that bitcoin's protocol could evolve, but that somehow there was a religious belief in certain aspects not to be changeable.  One can change it, and then everything can change, or one cannot change it, and then it is of course fixed in stone.

Actually, it is my understanding that if the crabs bucket contains enough non-colluding antagonists, you automatically get the "set in stone" property, but that property can only follow from a certain dynamics, and a certain initial state.   The fascinating aspect of bitcoin is whether this dynamics is actually emerging.  I think actually it is.  I think it is a kind of experiment in decentralization.  Hey, maybe Satoshi conducted an experiment, by setting up a dream for a "world currency", and then, innocently looking, put in that silly 1MB limit, to see whether the system became immutable enough for it not to be able, against all odds, to change that.  Given that the discussions to change this started in 2013, and got serious in 2015, and it still hasn't changed, I think that the crab bucket immutability may very well be at work.  But it is true that the experiment is not over, because it is only recently that people actually FEEL the difficulties of 1MB blocks.  So the pressure to "unite" and screw decentralization, augment.  This is a real test.
If in, say, 2020, there are still 1 MB blocks, and nothing has changed, I think we can call the experiment in immutability succeeded.

If the block size changes, or segwit gets implemented, we know that it is a centrally dictated system.

[2112]

Why would I ?  It catches on, no ?  The main goal of this catchy title was to indicate that it doesn't pay to censor me, but it can maybe serve other purposes. As long as I don't get *what* propaganda I'm spreading, I cannot find out whether I'd like to continue doing so or not, no ? 

Well, then don't claim here to learn when what you do is stirring the shitstorm with glee. You'll end up like cypherdoc, they kept edging him on until he lost cool and was quite legitimately censored.

If you can't live without propagandizing at least switch to something more defensible like "ASICBOOST is meh" or "ASICBOOST overpromises and underdelivers" or "How I learned to stop worrying and love the ASICBOOST".
 

[AngryDwarf]

If in, say, 2020, there are still 1 MB blocks, and nothing has changed, I think we can call the experiment in immutability succeeded.

If the block size changes, or segwit gets implemented, we know that it is a centrally dictated system.

You could be right. But then again 2020 might not be long enough for reality to bite. It might take a few more block halvings for that. Without the rising value belief factor, bitcoin will start to lose it's PoW security.

[The One]

Profit margin of 1% is possible is the miner sold the BTC straightaway. However in the real world, a company investing does a ROI calculation based on 1 to 5 years period. The profit margin would also be calculated based and expenditure v income. Now the income takes into account the inflation that pushes up the prices of goods. A company can predict selling at a higher price in the future based on idiotic governments fiat policy. If a miner were to do a ROI properly then it does not have to sell all BTC straightaway. Some can be stored and sold, hopefully, at a higher price in the future. Thus the profit margin will be higher than 1%.

The difficulty I have with that view, is that if the "current margin is 1%", then that's the real margin.  If you think that bitcoin's going to rise in price, there's no reason to MINE it if you can BUY it, so all future expectation of benefit from holding the mined bitcoin over selling it right away is fiat/bitcoin arbitrage but is not part of the margin from specifically mining it.

What I mean is this:
Suppose that I have a total cost of mining (everything included) of $100,- and I have now worth an amount X in BTC, what I can sell for $101,-.  That's what a 1% margin means, right ?  Whether that amount X will now be worth $120 next month, doesn't make my margin of mining increase to 20%.  Because I could also have bought bitcoin directly for $100 instead of spend it on mining.  I would then hold now $119 worth.  So the difference between "mining" with $100,- or directly speculating on the rise of BTC, only makes for a difference of 1%.

It doesn't work like that.

Cost of mining $100
Buy BTC $100

Both sold for $101 = 1% net profit margin

Cost of mining $100
Buy BTC $100
Both sold for $120 next month = 20% net profit margin.

Normally it would be gross profit margin then deduce tax = net profit margin. I'm assuming you don't pay tax 

The point of ROI (return on investment) is that the future price is estimated/predicted. Cost of mining $100 and Buy BTC $100 are investment. Your potential returns is somewhere in the future when you sell.

[dinofelis]

Why would I ?  It catches on, no ?  The main goal of this catchy title was to indicate that it doesn't pay to censor me, but it can maybe serve other purposes. As long as I don't get *what* propaganda I'm spreading, I cannot find out whether I'd like to continue doing so or not, no ?  

Well, then don't claim here to learn when what you do is stirring the shitstorm with glee.

Maybe stirring the shitstorm is a way to obtain knowledge.  

If you can't live without propagandizing at least switch to something more defensible like "ASICBOOST is meh" or "ASICBOOST overpromises and underdelivers" or "How I learned to stop worrying and love the ASICBOOST".

I don't see what this has to do with what I'm claiming: I claim that the claim that asicboost is a cheat and an exploit, is a false claim, and I think I've shown logically why.  That's all.  Maybe I'm wrong, and then people will explain this to me, which may convince me.  if I gently ask why asicboost is a cheat, I wouldn't get a serious answer.  It is only when making bold claims, right or wrong, doesn't matter, that one pushes those that do not agree, into giving arguments.
In real life, one cannot do that, because often one's personal reputation gets compromised by the claims so made, but on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 

What you are telling me, which is interesting in its own right, is that even though on paper, asicboost allows to do about 15-25% less calculations, that doesn't work out when trying to convert that theory into a working chip, because the extra complexity of re-routing the calculation results to different entities on the chip kill the gain one could, on paper, obtain.  Your argument, although not proven, is surely technically sound.  I wouldn't have learned that, without "provoking" you into pointing that out here, would I ?

So now in the end, I don't know whether there actually exist working asicboost chips out there with an advantage.  That's always better than thinking it is established that they exist if it is not the case.  So that too, is good for me, no ?

But all this doesn't change a iota to what I claim: any improvement in efficiency should be applied by miners, or it diminishes the (already very fragile) cryptographic security of PoW.  So miners never "cheat" when they improve the difficulty they can solve with a given economic cost.  I assumed, given the claims, that asicboost was of that kind, but in the end, it doesn't matter.

[randomdude]

The technical value of this asicboost patent is exactly "chicken scratch". It is only valuable as a legal bargaining chip for cross-licensing and as a propaganda device. This is the same for many other patents in the electronic and computer engineering business.

ASIC BOOST gives technical advantage to a smaller community of miners and gives the patent holder (backed by state law) the power to decide who is accepted in that community. This will break the neutrality of the entire system and slowly pave the way towards either monopoly or bitcoin mining becoming a legally-questionnable operation. I don't know which one is worse.

[dinofelis]

The technical value of this asicboost patent is exactly "chicken scratch". It is only valuable as a legal bargaining chip for cross-licensing and as a propaganda device. This is the same for many other patents in the electronic and computer engineering business.

ASIC BOOST gives technical advantage to a smaller community of miners and gives the patent holder (backed by state law) the power to decide who is accepted in that community. This will break the neutrality of the entire system and slowly pave the way towards either monopoly or bitcoin mining becoming a legally-questionnable operation. I don't know which one is worse.

So, 2112, randomdude, does, or doesn't, physically implemented asicboost increase the efficiency "difficulty reached / economic cost" ?

[dinofelis]

ASIC BOOST and SEGWIT, both of which have great changes in the bitcoin platform, however, whatever the change, it needs to be accepted by everyone. Bitcoin is not owned by anyone, it always starts with the opinion of everyone. Therefore, the comments from experts are always the basis for people to choose the right direction.

Huh ?  Asic boost is not a "modification to the bitcoin platform" at all. 

[paul gatt]

The technical value of this asicboost patent is exactly "chicken scratch". It is only valuable as a legal bargaining chip for cross-licensing and as a propaganda device. This is the same for many other patents in the electronic and computer engineering business.

ASIC BOOST gives technical advantage to a smaller community of miners and gives the patent holder (backed by state law) the power to decide who is accepted in that community. This will break the neutrality of the entire system and slowly pave the way towards either monopoly or bitcoin mining becoming a legally-questionnable operation. I don't know which one is worse.

So, 2112, randomdude, does, or doesn't, physically implemented asicboost increase the efficiency "difficulty reached / economic cost" ?

ASIC BOOST and SEGWIT, both of which have great changes in the bitcoin platform, however, whatever the change, it needs to be accepted by everyone. Bitcoin is not owned by anyone, it always starts with the opinion of everyone. Therefore, the comments from experts are always the basis for people to choose the right direction.