[bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant

Matt Corallo lf-lists at mattcorallo.com
Thu May 12 01:58:42 UTC 2016

Aside from patents related to the silicon manufacturing process itself and patents not yet published, yes, the process is unencumbered, and setting the correct precedent (that the community will fight large centralization risks) is important in the first case.


On May 11, 2016 9:23:21 PM EDT, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Is the design and manufacturing processes for the most power efficient
>ASICs otherwise patent unencumbered?  If not, why do we care so much
>this one patent over all the others that stand on the road between pen
>paper computation and thermodynamically ideal computation?
>On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
>bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > Secondly, we can probably make the consensus PoW allow blocks to be
>> mined using
>> > both the existing PoW algorithm, and a very slightly tweaked
>> where
>> > implementing AsicBoost gives no advantage. That removes any
>incentive to
>> > implement AsicBoost, without making any hardware obsolete
>> Taking that a step further, the old POW could continue to be accepted
>> but with a 20% target penalty. (or vice versa, with the new POW
>> a 20% target boost.)
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>bitcoin-dev mailing list
>bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160512/953527e5/attachment.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list