{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1a9hemj8hf6exprh5q6w8y70n9mm36h6pt5vlp2wtl9gjwfzaqjrqeuvwuq","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1a9hemj8hf6exprh5q6w8y70n9mm36h6pt5vlp2wtl9gjwfzaqjrqeuvwuq","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-04-08\n📝 Original message:\u003e Second, we can make this change relatively quickly. Most of the Segwit testing stays valid and this change can be deployed relatively quickly.\n\nIt is true only for nodes software. Most of the world's mining\ninfrastructure (at least for pool mining) is not ready for such\nchange. Current version of Stratum protocol doesn't support block\nversion changing. A broad adoption would require:\n\n- A new standard extension to the mining protocol (generally, we want\nthe hash rate to be free to change the used pool without efficiency\nloss)\n- Pool operators must change their software.\n- All miners must update their firmware IF they have compatible\nhardware (we know there is compatible hardware out there but\ndefinitely not all of the currently used). The firmware can be changed\nafter the mining protocol extension is settled.\n\nUntil all miners update (firmware or hardware), the change encourages\nlarge difference in mining efficiency. And IMO it gives another\nadvantage to large mining operations in general.\n\n\u003e But think of it this way, if some newer ASIC optimization comes up, would you rather have a non-ASICBoosted hash rate to defend with or an ASICBoosted hash rate? Certainly, the latter, being higher will secure the Bitcoin network better against newer optimizations.\n\nYou make a strong assumption that the new optimization is not\ncompatible with overt ASICBoost. If it is compatible, ASICBoost\ndoesn't help you with \"defending against\" the new optimization at all.\nAnd it can be the case that the new optimization is based on ASICBoost\nso you can make the situation \"worse\" by allowing it.\n\n\u003e Certainly, if only one company made use of the extra nonce space, they would have an advantage.\n\nCan you explain why the reality should be significantly different? In\nsufficiently near future.\n\n\u003e Is that patented in any jurisdiction, all jurisdictions or only certain jurisdictions? Would a patent granted for SHA256 in Swaziland be sufficient for Bitcoin to change the Proof of Work algorithm?\n\nWe don't have to deal with any such theoretical situation now. You\nproposal goes in opposite direction, by adding support for patented\nalgorithm. I don't know myself what the possible legal implications\nare (maybe only for a subset of miners) so I consider it as an\nunnecessary risk. At least before some conclusive legal analysis says\ndifferently."}