MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzuPrvoz5TpO+SvHs_Eix7usFTPuEgxhocjc8tf23LnuOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-pAxs_Gim-aFdjd4eQPY6vWsoEVafYwcjmBjit_dsH_wA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzuPrvoz5TpO+SvHs_Eix7usFTPuEgxhocjc8tf23LnuOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 19:25:52 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKzdR-p4gs3nz9efYadTehi-KhCh7xRoVXqPN==U9z1PM9SLpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e3e3ecae62a053de95153
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] About ASICBoost
Precedence: list

--001a114e3e3ecae62a053de95153
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

It's good you bring that point, and it's very interesting to analyze what
happened then.

We shared our findings with some core developers much earlier than the BIP
proposal. Wether they kept it secret or they shared it with some ASIC
manufacturers is something I don't know. I even mentioned my wishes to try
to give the patent to public domain.

I remember the reason we proposed the BIP is because ASICBoost actually
does NOT require that BIP at all. And that BIP was not a consensus change,
but just a semantic re-interpretation.

ASICBoost can roll the nVersion field or the Merkle root hash. Doing the
former currently generates a strange warning message on nodes and can be
confusing, but doing the later makes ASICBoost completely stealthy. That
BIP could help the community to monitor its use in non-confusing way to the
users. What is worse? I think forcing it to be stealthy is worse.

I never opposed changing Bitcoin to be more decentralized, but hard-forking
a change to the PoW function may be contentious and that path of thought
must be walked very carefully.

Regards

--001a114e3e3ecae62a053de95153
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>It&#39;s good you bri=
ng that point, and it&#39;s very interesting to analyze what happened then.=
<br><br></div>We shared our findings with some core developers much earlier=
 than the BIP proposal. Wether they kept it secret or they shared it with s=
ome ASIC manufacturers is something I don&#39;t know. I even mentioned my w=
ishes to try to give the patent to public domain.<br>=C2=A0<br>I remember t=
he reason we proposed the BIP is because ASICBoost actually does NOT requir=
e that BIP at all. And that BIP was not a consensus change, but just a sema=
ntic re-interpretation. <br><br>ASICBoost can roll the nVersion field or th=
e Merkle root hash. Doing the former currently generates a strange warning =
message on nodes and can be confusing, but doing the later makes ASICBoost =
completely stealthy. That BIP could help the community to monitor its use i=
n non-confusing way to the users. What is worse? I think forcing it to be s=
tealthy is worse.<br><br>I never opposed changing Bitcoin to be more decent=
ralized, but hard-forking a change to the PoW function may be contentious a=
nd that path of thought must be walked very carefully. <br></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">Regards<br></div></di=
v></div>

--001a114e3e3ecae62a053de95153--