MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Oliver Petruzel <opetruzel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 00:47:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CALhpmH2MdhYgwTB+zZBO7iWQbBLb63E7Yrkj2-NV6KZ35TYP=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140f5a6bb2ba6054c783350
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the
 Bitcoin POW function
Precedence: list

--001a1140f5a6bb2ba6054c783350
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

> > One of the things going for us here is that Bitmain has been keeping
ASICBOOST
> > from their own customers - as far as we know they haven't been sharing
it, and
> > thus they're the only ones you can actually use it.
> >
> > So while we're pissing off Bitmain in disabling it, we wouldn't be
affecting
> > anyone else.
> >
> > Equally, mining is a zero-sum game: if no-one can use ASICBOOST, miners
are in
> > the same position as before. ASICBOOST is only relevant to miners like
Bitmain
> > who have access to it while other miners don't.

Peter -
Do we know that for a fact, though? What evidence or intelligence do we
have to indicate Bitmain itself is the only entity using the covert boost?

A few possibilities:
1. They could have already shared it with a limited number of strategic
partners;
2. They could have offered to share it with various parties in exchange for
something (money, support for BU, etc); or
3. They could provide the custom firmware/software to select parties as a
direct response to this disclosure -- which would enhance their defenses
against a soft fork.
4. They could share the firmware/software with EVERY owner of their
equipment in a last-ditch defense against a soft fork. (after all, some
advantage over other equipment manufacturers is still better than no
advantage, right?)

Assumptions could lead to failure, so these are just some things to keep in
mind.

Respectfully,
Oliver

--001a1140f5a6bb2ba6054c783350
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt; &gt; One of the things going for us here is that Bitm=
ain has been keeping ASICBOOST<br>&gt; &gt; from their own customers - as f=
ar as we know they haven&#39;t been sharing it, and<br>&gt; &gt; thus they&=
#39;re the only ones you can actually use it.<br>&gt; &gt;<br>&gt; &gt; So =
while we&#39;re pissing off Bitmain in disabling it, we wouldn&#39;t be aff=
ecting<br>&gt; &gt; anyone else.<br>&gt; &gt;<br>&gt; &gt; Equally, mining =
is a zero-sum game: if no-one can use ASICBOOST, miners are in<br>&gt; &gt;=
 the same position as before. ASICBOOST is only relevant to miners like Bit=
main<br>&gt; &gt; who have access to it while other miners don&#39;t.<br><b=
r>Peter -<br>Do we know that for a fact, though? What evidence or intellige=
nce do we have to indicate Bitmain itself is the only entity using the cove=
rt boost?<br><br>A few possibilities: <br>1. They could have already shared=
 it with a limited number of strategic partners; <br>2. They could have off=
ered to share it with various parties in exchange for something (money, sup=
port for BU, etc); or <br>3. They could provide the custom firmware/softwar=
e to select parties as a direct response to this disclosure -- which would =
enhance their defenses against a soft fork.<div>4. They could share the fir=
mware/software with EVERY owner of their equipment in a last-ditch defense =
against a soft fork. (after all, some advantage over other equipment manufa=
cturers is still better than no advantage, right?)<br><br>Assumptions could=
 lead to failure, so these are just some things to keep in mind.<br><br>Res=
pectfully, <br>Oliver</div></div>

--001a1140f5a6bb2ba6054c783350--