rich1.0npub1a9hemj8hf6exprh5q6w8y70n9mm36h6pt5vlp2wtl9gjwfzaqjrqeuvwuqhttps://nostr.ae/npub1a9hemj8hf6exprh5q6w8y70n9mm36h6pt5vlp2wtl9gjwfzaqjrqeuvwuqnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-04-08 📝 Original message:> Second, we can make this change relatively quickly. Most of the Segwit testing stays valid and this change can be deployed relatively quickly. It is true only for nodes software. Most of the world's mining infrastructure (at least for pool mining) is not ready for such change. Current version of Stratum protocol doesn't support block version changing. A broad adoption would require: - A new standard extension to the mining protocol (generally, we want the hash rate to be free to change the used pool without efficiency loss) - Pool operators must change their software. - All miners must update their firmware IF they have compatible hardware (we know there is compatible hardware out there but definitely not all of the currently used). The firmware can be changed after the mining protocol extension is settled. Until all miners update (firmware or hardware), the change encourages large difference in mining efficiency. And IMO it gives another advantage to large mining operations in general. > 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. You make a strong assumption that the new optimization is not compatible with overt ASICBoost. If it is compatible, ASICBoost doesn't help you with "defending against" the new optimization at all. And it can be the case that the new optimization is based on ASICBoost so you can make the situation "worse" by allowing it. > Certainly, if only one company made use of the extra nonce space, they would have an advantage. Can you explain why the reality should be significantly different? In sufficiently near future. > 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? We don't have to deal with any such theoretical situation now. You proposal goes in opposite direction, by adding support for patented algorithm. I don't know myself what the possible legal implications are (maybe only for a subset of miners) so I consider it as an unnecessary risk. At least before some conclusive legal analysis says differently.