rich1.0npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nhttps://nostr.ae/npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-04-08 📝 Original message:I think it might be important that the mandatory commitment expire as in Greg's proposal - when we do eventually hardfork, it will be simpler to do in a safe manner if such a commitment in the fake "old block" is not required. I don't like your proposal because it allows ASICBoost. ASICBoost effectively makes SHA2 semi-ASIC-resistant. ASIC-resistance raises the barrier of entry to new mining chip manufacturers, and gives a larger advantage to the miners able to make use of it. Instead, IMO we should fix the vulnerability exploited by ASICBoost entirely to keep SHA2 as ASIC-friendly as possible - or change the PoW to an algorithm that is more ASIC-friendly. That being said, I don't think I would oppose the proposal if it gained notably better support than Segwit currently has (as yet another compromise), and the above concerns were addressed (eg, Bitfury and Canaan state they can compete using ASICBoost and the patents are licensed freely to everyone). Luke On Saturday, April 08, 2017 12:05:16 AM Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I've gotten feedback from Adam Back that you actually don't need all 32 > bits in the header for overt ASICBoost, so I'm modifying my proposal. Of > the 32-bit version field, bits 16 to 23 are reserved for miners, the > witness commitment stays as defined in BIP-141 except that it's now > required. BIP9 then is modified so that bits 16 to 23 are now no longer > usable. > > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Jimmy Song <jaejoon at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey everyone, This is an idea that I had about Segwit and Gregory's > > proposal from yesterday that I wanted to run by everyone on this list. > > I'm not at all sure what this would mean for non-upgraded nodes on the > > network and would like feedback on that. This is not a formal BIP as > > it's a modification to a previously submitted one, but I'm happy to > > formalize it if it would help. > > ---------------------------------------- > > MotivationOne of the interesting aspects of Gregory Maxwell’s proposal is > > that it only precludes the covert version of ASICBoost. He specifically > > left the overt version alone. > > > > Overt ASICBoost requires grinding on the version bits of the Block header > > instead of the Merkle Root. This is likely more efficient than the Merkle > > Root grinding (aka covert ASICBoost) and requires way less resources > > (much less RAM, SHA256 calculations, no tx shuffling, etc). > > > > If we combine Gregory Maxwell’s proposal with BIP-141 (Segwit) and add a > > slight modification, this should, in theory, make ASICBoost a lot more > > useful to miners and appeal to their financial interests. > > The Modification > > > > Currently, the version bits (currently 4 bytes, or 32 bits) in the header > > are used for BIP9 signaling. We change the version bits to a nonce-space > > so the miners can use it for overt ASICBoost. The 32-bits are now moved > > over to the Coinbase transaction as part of the witness commitment. The > > witness commitment goes from 38 bytes to 42 bytes, with the last 4 bytes > > being used as the version bits in the block header previously. The > > witness commitment becomes required as per Gregory Maxwell’s proposal. > > Reasoning > > > > First, this brings ASICBoost out into the open. Covert ASICBoost becomes > > much more costly and overt ASICBoost is now encouraged. > > > > Second, we can make this change relatively quickly. Most of the Segwit > > testing stays valid and this change can be deployed relatively quickly. > > > > Note on SPV clients > > > > Currently Segwit stores the witness commitment in the Coinbase tx, so > > lightweight clients will need to get the Coinbase tx + Merkle proof to > > validate segwit transactions anyway. Putting block version information in > > the Coinbase tx will not impose an extra burden on upgraded light > > clients.