On 05/29/2017 04:19 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 01:07:58PM -0700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Anthony,
>> For the sake of argument:
>
> (That seems like the cue to move any further responses to bitcoin-discuss)
I didn't meant to imply that the point was academic,
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 01:07:58PM -0700, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Anthony,
> For the sake of argument:
(That seems like the cue to move any further responses to bitcoin-discuss)
> (1) What would the situation look like if there was no patent?
If there were no patent, and it were ea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Anthony,
For the sake of argument:
(1) What would the situation look like if there was no patent?
(2) Would the same essential formulation exist if there had been a
patent on bitcoin mining ASICs in general?
(3) Would an unforeseen future patente
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:02:27AM +0300, Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> If one assumes that the 67% of the hash rate that refuse to signal
> for SegWit are using ASICBOOST. The entire picture of this political
> stalemate became much more understandable.
A couple of bits of math that mi
Hello Eric,
Thank you for your question and your time off-list clarifying your position.
I’m posting to the list so that a wider audience may benefit.
Original Question: ‘Presumably the "very serious security vulnerability" posed
is one of increased centralization of hash power. Would this dang
On Friday, 26 May 2017 16:39:30 CEST Erik Aronesty wrote:
> Linking a bit4 MASF with a bit4 "lock in of a hard fork in 6 months" is
> something that will simply never happen for basic engineering reasons.
The modifications to Bitcoin Core would take at most a day to do, plus a week
to test.
I’m n
Linking a bit4 MASF with a bit4 "lock in of a hard fork in 6 months" is
something that will simply never happen for basic engineering reasons.
Spoonet, an oft-quoted hard fork that actually has some strong support, is
a much better candidate for the code base - but not of the supposed
supporters o
On Friday, 26 May 2017 10:02:27 CEST Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> So, I started searching for the motivations of such a large amount of the
> mining hash-rate holding a position that isn’t at-all represented in the
> wider Bitcoin Community. My study of ASICBOOST lead to a ‘bingo’ momen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi Cameron,
Presumably the "very serious security vulnerability" posed is one of
increased centralization of hash power. Would this danger exist
without the patent risk?
e
On 05/26/2017 01:02 AM, Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Thank you
I rarely post here, out of respect to the mailing list. But since my name
was mentioned...
I much prefer Gregory Maxwell's proposal to defuse covert ASICBOOST (only)
with a segwit-like commitment to the coinbase which does not obligate
miners to signal Segwit or implement Segwit, thus disarming an
Thank you for your reply Andreas,
I can assure you that I have many motivations for activating SegWit.
Before studding ASICBOOST I wanted to activate SegWit as it is a wonderful
upgrade for Bitcoin. It seems to me that virtually the entire Bitcoin Ecosystem
agrees with me. Except for around 67
Hello Bitcoin-Dev,
CVE-2017-9230 (1) (2), or commonly known as ‘ASICBOOST’ is a severe (3) (4) and
actively exploited (5) security vulnerability.
To learn more about this vulnerability please read Jeremy Rubin’s detailed
report:
http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin//public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
Andreas
12 matches
Mail list logo
