Re: [bitcoin-dev] About ASICBoost

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > If you had acted in a way which indicated even the slightest regard for > centralization pressure and the harm it can do to Bitcoin in the > long-term, then I dont think many would be

Re: [bitcoin-dev] About ASICBoost

> When you proposed the extra nonce space BIP [1], you had already > applied for your ASICBOOST patent [2] without disclosure in the BIP > [1] nor in your Bitcoin Core pull request #5102 [2]. There may be quite a few things to clarify here, and a possible misunderstanding: The BIP proposal [1]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] About ASICBoost

Replies to comments inline. Matt On 10/02/16 17:13, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Please Peter Todd explain here all what you want to say about a patent > of a hardware design for an ASIC. > > Remember that ASICBoost is not the only patent out there, there are at > least three

Re: [bitcoin-dev] About ASICBoost

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] About ASICBoost

Sergio, It is critically important to the future of Bitcoin that consensus code avoid any unnecessary entanglements with patents because "the free market" allows you and anyone else to make consensus change proposals that rely on (unknown) patents - but this is something we should all be working

[bitcoin-dev] About ASICBoost

Please Peter Todd explain here all what you want to say about a patent of a hardware design for an ASIC. Remember that ASICBoost is not the only patent out there, there are at least three similar patents, filed by major Bitcoin ASIC manufacturers in three different countries, on similar