Topic: Daily reminder: The covert ASICBOOST scam is not fixed with segwith hardfork (Read 730 times)

do some real research.. reddit is FUD scripter zone not research zone. stay away from it
your first fail is to turn everything into a jihan argument as if the 68%-70% nay/abstainers is just 1-2 guys fault.
open your eyes, you will surprise yourself at what you see when you dont use reddit as your source

And you believe Jihan is not stalling blocksize? He already dropped BU and those r/btc people all felt for his crap that Segwit is cancer, bad etc. And now he's working on a different version of Segwit..lol

Jihan's business model is focused on milking out those high fee's as much as possible.

lol
covert asic boost is not related to empty blocks. might be worth you researching the difference.
even if covert was disabled... empty block mining still occurs

also although antpool has a chinese licence for asic boost, other pools can be using it and you wouldnt even know it
Gmaxwells argument is not that jihan is/could be using it. its that bitcoin has an exploit..
luke Jr wants to use it to try sliding in segwit and other future features without concensus veto
asicboost can be used to help asics be more efficient and strengthen the network against outside attackers
and its a fight over who deserves to use it. or if no one should use it

for instance if left open. some dev could slide in a trojan that wasnt 'virtuous'
for instance if left open. some non bitcoin pool could make a private chain with less ASICS but build higher blockheight privately. and then broadcast it to the network to take over the chain..
gmax wont say it as it will just put idea's into people heads and he would get slammed for hinting it should it ever happen

but anyway lets deal with other pools that do empty blocks
btc.com does https://blockchain.info/block-height/468613
bixin.com does https://blockchain.info/block-height/468873
1hash does https://blockchain.info/block-height/468570
f2pool does https://blockchain.info/block-height/468721  
viabtc does https://blockchain.info/block-height/468612
btc.top does https://blockchain.info/block-height/468415

horseshit, it results in jihad mining empty blocks and congestion in transactions and higher fees. And bigger blocks won't solve it
   

gmaxwels gripe was asicboost hinders segwit 'backward compatibility easy to implement' functionality promise..
"the protocol interactions of the covert method can block the implementation of virtuous* improvements such as segregated witness"

in short asicboost uses the same trojan horse exploit backdoor as what segwit needs



however
if segwit functions via jgarzigs implementation then asicboost becomes a non issue to segwit.

however
filling this exploit backdoor would not only stop asicboost, but could also stop segwits 'promise' of sliding in later soft upgrades via the same backdoor exploit.

(use of virtuous: morally accepted trojan by the use of an exploit backdoor to enter the protocol, accepted because 'the good guys use it)

to be honest, id say fill the exploit. dont let anyone have a backdoor

Is there anyone surprised? Core is doing everything they can to stall blocksize increase.

I'm glad Jeff opened that discussion. Looks like Jeff is trying to reassure everyone that asicboost will be disabled, but he's kinda dancing around the issue and gmaxwell (judging from his most recent comment) is not yet convinced.

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/8


Asicboost is a non issue. FUD propaganda.

I speculate that you are correct. I've posted some questions and comments here and there to try to get someone to convince me that your observation is wrong, but haven't gotten many responses yet.

I hope it's wrong. But if it's correct, here is how the future is going to play out:

1. UASF will activate August 1. A chain split will occur, into "JihanCoin" (aka "ASICBoostCoin") and "CoreCoin" (aka "SegWitCoin.")

And the Battle for Bitcoin will be on!

2. Jihan, Roger Ver and company will mine on JihanCoin. At first.

... but ....

3. One way or another, it will be possible to trade JihanCoin against CoreCoin. Probably on at least one exchange, but if not, in other ways.
4. The price of CoreCoin will soar, easily into the  $5k-$10k range. The value of JihanCoin will plummet. Why? Here's why:

- JihanCoin will support fewer on chain transactions than CoreCoin.
- JihanCoin will support NO off chain transactions because it will not have SegWit.
- JihanCoin will be unstable, because if its chain length is ever overtaken by CoreCoin, then all miners will immediately cease mining on JihanCoin. This danger will not apply the other way around.
- Core remains highly respected for their coding abilities.
- Jihan and Roger have lost credibility. Their arguments have been disingenuous and the coding by people in their camp has been sloppy (relatively speaking). (And don't forget that Roger assured the world that MtGox was solvent. Not directly relevant here, except on the question of soundness of judgement.)

5. Miners will realize that even with ASICBoost, they will lose money mining on JihanCoin, relative to CoreCoin. So they will redirect their miners towards pools that mine CoreCoin.
6. CoreCoin hash power will exceed that of JihanCoin, and JihanCoin will die. Pretty quickly I will imagine.

And before you know it, the Battle of Bitcoin will be over. CoreCoin will have vanquished JihanCoin.

7. Bitcoin price will continue to skyrocket because the scaling debate will be over, SegWit will be activated, and ASICBoost (which caused the scaling debate stalemate in the first place, and could in theory cause additional stalemates in the future) will be taken out of the equation.

And all will be good with the world.

COVERT ASICBOOST (note covert) must be removed via softfork. From what i've understood, a hardfork activation doesn't cut it for some reason.

Im ok with a blocksize increase to 2MB, with 1 year of preparation, and with activation of segwit by mining agreement as soon as possible.

Of course this must be all developed by Core because im not installing trash on my computer.

1. its just more efficient method of mining. just like the GPU mining days of OpenCL vs kuda
2. asicboost is as much of an exploit as going soft is an exploit

3. to simplify it. its all about who should use the spare space of a block header.
A. asics
B. soft fork

4. if a hard consensus is needed then devs dont need the spare space to soft fork, because they are going hard so dont need cludgy code reliant on the spare block header space

None of the above posts clearly explains whether Asicboost exploit can still be used after the Frankenstein upgrade or not

I am wondering about the exact same thing, it seems weird that Jihad Wu has agreed to the Frankenstein version.

Asicboost is inacceptable so I really would like to know. Saying it is "not an issue" is just not helping. 

TLDR:

in short if your interested in increasing the base blocksize, then a hard consensus is needed thus asicboost does not become an issue to even bring into the scaling debate

if you want to stick with 1mb base and only do as a soft implementation. then asicboost is a consideration to the debate

---

---

waffle version

asic boost is just an efficiency gain much like
same scenario..(patents/competition)
 ATI's openCL is an efficiency gain compared to Geforces Kuda.

however if pools wanted to use the efficiency gain then the spare data in a block header cant be used to make 2 merkles for a soft fork to happen.. its  not about patents. its not about racism. its just that blockstreams 'soft' approach is not as easy to implement as most think.

but here is the thing

if its a 2merkle (1mb base 3mb witness= 4mb weight) occurs, then asic boost cant occur due to the spare data being used up by the extra merkle to allow soft implementation

if its a 2merkle (2mb base 6mb witness= 8mb weight) then asic boost cant occur due to the spare data being used up by the extra merkle to allow soft implementation

here is the 'mic drop' kicker though..
to get a bigger base, requires hard consensus. which then negates the need to have 2 merkles anyway !!! <- emphasis on this point
and also negates needing to have it as a 2mb base 6mb witness.. it might aswell just be a single block of 8mb where all keypairs sit in the same area. because if your doing a hard consensus anyway, theres no need for the cludge....... obviously

so with a 1 merkle 8mb block for instance, where both native and segwit tx sit in the same area then asic boost can still occur. but the bonus is that segwit keypairs would be part of the 1 merkle upgrade allowing for a nice longer bit of peace for tx's to happily reside in the 8mb weight before it gets filled

---

get passed the false pretence argument that asicboost is bad efficiency.. and realise that asic boost just stops a soft upgrade.
which becomes no issue if there was a hard consensus upgrade

in short if your interested in increasing the base blocksize, then a hard consensus is needed thus asicboost does not become an issue to even bring into the scaling debate

if you want to stick with 1mb base and only do as a soft implementation. then asicboost is a consideration to the debate

What's your reasoning for saying that hard-fork Segwit doesn't prevent ASIC boost, pereira?

As far as I'm aware, Segwit 8MB hard fork (i.e. 2MB base + 6 MB witness, aka Barrycoin) is exactly what it sounds like, a hard fork of the Bitcoin Core Segwit soft fork that includes a 2MB base blocksize and 6MB witness blocks.

The frankenstein NYC 2MB+segwit HF does NOT fix the covert ASICBOOST scam which is the last thing Jihad Wu wants to lose.

The only way to fix this mess is by means of softfork segwit. Whoever opposes to softwork segwit is under Jihad Wu's paycheck.

If segwit is not activated before august 1st, UASF will kick in and then the rest of the miners, merchants, and users will have to choose between ASICBOOSTcoin and Bitcoin (with segwit activated).