{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcu","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcu","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-05-11\n📝 Original message:Indeed, I think the \"ASICs are bad, because 1-CPU-1-vote\" arguments\nmostly died out long ago, and, indeed, the goal that many making those\narguments had of building \"unoptimizeable\" ASICs failed with them.\n\nI think everyone understands that there will always be some ability to\niterate on ASIC designs, however, a patented optimization breaks that\nassumption. Instead of being freely able to optimize their ASIC design,\npatented optimizations require that people who discover such\noptimizations themselves do not use them, giving one\nmanufacturer/licenser a huge influence in who is successful in a market\nthat we're all relying on remaining rather flat. Indeed, with AsicBoost,\nwe saw Spondoolies independently discover the same optimization, but\nwith the current legal system they would not have been able to sell such\nsystems without licensing AsicBoost.\n\nMatt\n\nOn 05/11/16 13:08, Marek Palatinus via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Ehm, I though those discussions about \"ASICs are bad, because X\" ended\n\u003e years ago by starting \"ASIC unfriendly\" altcoins. ASIC industry is\n\u003e twisted even without AsicBoost. I don't see any particular reason why to\n\u003e change rules just because of 10% edge.\n\u003e \n\u003e This is opening Pandora box and it is potentially extremely dangerous\n\u003e for the health of the network. You cannot know in advance what you'll\n\u003e break by changing the rules.\n\u003e \n\u003e Disclaimer: I don't have any stake in any ASIC company/facility.\n\u003e \n\u003e slush\n\u003e \n\u003e On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e     On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner\n\u003e     \u003csergio.d.lerner at gmail.com \u003cmailto:sergio.d.lerner at gmail.com\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e         You can find it here:\n\u003e         https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/the-re-design-of-the-bitcoin-block-header/\n\u003e \n\u003e         Basically, the idea is to put in the first 64 bytes a 4 byte\n\u003e         hash of the second 64-byte chunk. That design also allows\n\u003e         increased nonce space in the first 64 bytes.\n\u003e \n\u003e     My mistake here. I didn't recalled correctly my own idea. The idea\n\u003e     is to include in the second 64-byte chunk a 4-byte hash of the first\n\u003e     chunk, not the opposite.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e     _______________________________________________\n\u003e     bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e     bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e     \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e"}