Pages:
Author

Topic: AsicBoost Probably the reason Segwit is being blocked. - page 2. (Read 2739 times)

hero member
Activity: 994
Merit: 544


I found this very interesting article about why some miners and mining pools may be blocking segwit.


http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-new-controversy-asicboost-allegations-explained/



I would love to start mining using AsicBoost. Hell!

They are blocking the segwit but on what expense. Anyway here is the reason why the bitcoin holders and exchanges favors core developers segregated witness or segwit because of this statement on that article you posted : "The assertion is that Bitmain is not only blocking a technical solution favored by the Core developers (through its support of alternative development teams), but doing so because it would enhance its profitability at the expense of users."

Further bitmain expresses the they are not yet using that system ever since. Hope this is true.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


it make sense, because they have no access to asicboost, and going against segwit is not giving anything for them, and probably still waiting for better solution

My understanding from the recent discussions is that you cannot use asicboost at the pool level without it being publicly known or obvious
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 253
Property1of1OU
That's a very important topic.

I am totally pro to open-hardware initiative. At Free Software Foundation, chapter Europe we try to push 'open-v' The World's First Open Source RISC-V-based 32-bit μC for general use.

https://www.crowdsupply.com/onchip/open-v

Now imagine when we're talking about cryptographic arena.

Regards to not trust hidden functions in the hardware. I really liked that interview with Richard Stallman about draw the line between open software and hardware video jump to 6 minutes something

https://youtu.be/jUibaPTXSHk?t=6m19s

lets move on a lite bit ...

Quote
==Background==

The general idea of this attack is that SHA2-256 is a merkle damgard hash
function which consumes 64 bytes of data at a time.

The Bitcoin mining process repeatedly hashes an 80-byte 'block header' while
incriminating a 32-bit nonce which is at the end of this header data. This
means that the processing of the header involves two runs of the compression
function run-- one that consumes the first 64 bytes of the header and a
second which processes the remaining 16 bytes and padding.

The initial 'message expansion' operations in each step of the SHA2-256
function operate exclusively on that step's 64-bytes of input with no
influence from prior data that entered the hash.

Because of this if a miner is able to prepare a block header with
multiple distinct first 64-byte chunks but identical 16-byte
second chunks they can reuse the computation of the initial
expansion for multiple trials. This reduces power consumption.

There are two broad ways of making use of this attack. The obvious
way is to try candidates with different version numbers.  Beyond
upsetting the soft-fork detection logic in Bitcoin nodes this has
little negative effect but it is highly conspicuous and easily
blocked.

The other method is based on the fact that the merkle root
committing to the transactions is contained in the first 64-bytes
except for the last 4 bytes of it.  If the miner finds multiple
candidate root values which have the same final 32-bit then they
can use the attack.

To find multiple roots with the same trailing 32-bits the miner can
use efficient collision finding mechanism which will find a match
with as little as 2^16 candidate roots expected, 2^24 operations to
find a 4-way hit, though low memory approaches require more
computation.

An obvious way to generate different candidates is to grind the
coinbase extra-nonce but for non-empty blocks each attempt will
require 13 or so additional sha2 runs which is very inefficient.

This inefficiency can be avoided by computing a sqrt number of
candidates of the left side of the hash tree (e.g. using extra
nonce grinding) then an additional sqrt number of candidates of
the right  side of the tree using transaction permutation or
substitution of a small number of transactions.  All combinations
of the left and right side are then combined with only a single
hashing operation virtually eliminating all tree related
overhead.

With this final optimization finding a 4-way collision with a
moderate amount of memory requires ~2^24 hashing operations
instead of the >2^28 operations that would be require for
extra-nonce  grinding which would substantially erode the
benefit of the attack.

It is this final optimization which this proposal blocks

from:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html



edit: fix typo
legendary
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1070


Does AsicBoost now sort of explain why the Chinese have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into mining?

it doesn't make sense for all fo them to get access to asicboost, otherwise you know the result would be no advantage

if everyone can have the same boost it mean that everyone is earning the same as before, therefore is presumable to think that only few big miners can have access to it to make it worth

The biggest problem is actually lazy miners...30% of them aren't signaling ANY upgrade. 

it make sense, because they have no access to asicboost, and going against segwit is not giving anything for them, and probably still waiting for better solution
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
coindesk is a well known Blockstream mouthpiece.


legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
1. (to address posts above) 30% of pools abstaining is really due to being smart and knowing nodes DO matter so no point flagging for something that a node wont fully validate/handle even if node can 'hotpotato game' a stripped block
solution: finally do a proper node+pool consensus and need 1 merkle. and while at it, go dynamic. = community happy

2. asicboost is not a harm its an efficiency gain. like ATI's openCL was. and the resulting hash is not fake but a valid hash that works and checks out. (ATI did not attack bitcoin in the GPU mining era, for analogy comparison)

3. mining hardware and asicboost predates segwit.. meaning miners didnt create an attack, segwit 'going soft' 2merkle tricks just isnt compatible
(a yet to be active bitcoin code failing due to ATI opencL incompatibility wouldnt of been blamed as a ATI openCL attack, for analogy comparison)
solution: segwit finally do a proper node+pool consensus and need 1 merkle. and while at it, go dynamic. = community happy

4. again miners hardware software efficiency 2015. segwit anyonecanspend backdoor exploit AFTER that. segwit code release october 2016.  feb-march 2017 gmax finds a flaw in segwit and goes full wetard to blame miners(facepalm illogic).

today
rather than give in and do a better job with only 6 month old inactivated segwit software,
rather than give in and finally do a real full bitcoin network upgrade of 1merkle and keep all diverse nodes on level playingfield of a peer network
gmax wants to double down.
mandatory activation, remove pool efficiency but keep his 2 merkle TIER network control agenda

issue with gmax plan:
some outsider can start building a 600k blockheight chain privately using the asicboost. to get better chainwork.. then in a few years when bitcoin moves to a 1 merkle, they plop in their chain and take over, due to bitcoin being less efficient than the outsider during the 2merkle period.

solution. do a full proper node+pool consensus, go dynamic, keep the community happy and just let pools use the most efficient hashing methods ther are.

dont break the pools kneecaps just to force segwit tier network in.

P.S segwit using the anyonecanspend opcode backdoor exploit (AKA 'going soft') and suggesting that blockstream can add more backdoors (aka 'even easier to go soft') is allowing more risks of outsiders using those backdoors to slide in their own trojans undetectable to native nodes.
(if people take off their dev devotion hats, they will see it)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
The biggest problem is actually lazy miners...30% of them aren't signaling ANY upgrade. 

That shit is a real problem. Its like, IDK, hmm... maybe they don't want anything to change?

Maybe.  Seems foolish to me.  How can Bitcoin continue if it never scales beyond 3 TPS?
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 263
The devil is in the detail.
The biggest problem is actually lazy miners...30% of them aren't signaling ANY upgrade. 

That shit is a real problem. Its like, IDK, hmm... maybe they don't want anything to change?
sr. member
Activity: 812
Merit: 250
A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards
Yep i guess some miners can mine through the use of this exploit.
But a core dev said that this may harm the bitcoin network cause this mathematical trick is skipping some steps in mining blocks that's why BU miners has empty blocks sometimes.

thats more or less totally incorrect.

but OK
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
The biggest problem is actually lazy miners...30% of them aren't signaling ANY upgrade. 
sr. member
Activity: 1400
Merit: 269
Yep i guess some miners can mine through the use of this exploit.
But a core dev said that this may harm the bitcoin network cause this mathematical trick is skipping some steps in mining blocks that's why BU miners has empty blocks sometimes.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000
No. They dominate the production processes for making ASICs in the first place, and since every day counts when it comes to earning back the cost of mining equipment, sheer proximity matters. It makes sense they would end up dominating mining itself, since they also have cheap labor and cheap electricity and cool temperatures in certain areas (Himalayas, inner Mongolia etc.)

This won't help if the Chinese government cracks down on Bitcoin. They can mine all the bitcoins they want, but they won't be able to convert it into ready cash to pay their bills.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1036
No. They dominate the production processes for making ASICs in the first place, and since every day counts when it comes to earning back the cost of mining equipment, sheer proximity matters. It makes sense they would end up dominating mining itself, since they also have cheap labor and cheap electricity and cool temperatures in certain areas (Himalayas, inner Mongolia etc.)
full member
Activity: 302
Merit: 100


Does AsicBoost now sort of explain why the Chinese have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into mining?
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1036


I found this very interesting article about why some miners and mining pools may be blocking segwit.


http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-new-controversy-asicboost-allegations-explained/



I would love to start mining using AsicBoost. Hell!


Looks like you can - check out this link:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/dfy5o65/

Down in the comments where earonesty says "And... one more miner using ASICBOOST". People are doing it apparently.
full member
Activity: 302
Merit: 100


I found this very interesting article about why some miners and mining pools may be blocking segwit.


http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-new-controversy-asicboost-allegations-explained/



I would love to start mining using AsicBoost. Hell!
Pages:
Jump to: