This AsicBoost debate is very important for the future, I'm not entirely sold on the idea to hard-fork Bitcoin just to eradicate someone's innovation. If we allow this fork, then how many will be needed if someone else decides to file a new patent because they designed a chip that gives 1000% more hashing power?
Are we really going to prevent intellectual property?
Topic: The AsicBoost 'dilemma' - page 2. (Read 2676 times)
Clearly this is not about being against innovation. The problem is, that this kind of innovation might not be equally available to all miners, which poses the risk of a malevolent mining cartel.
Of course it's not gonna be equally available to all miners, nothing ever is. Not government subsidized 2-4 cent power, just for starters.
As far as "malevolent mining cartels" go, scratch the malevolent part (Bitcoin has no anti-monopoly rules, afaik), and sure, we got them already
http://s32.postimg.org/ru8bnc6j9/bitchrs.jpg
Quote
Since the rights granted by a U.S. patent extend only throughout the territory of the United States and have no effect in a foreign country, an inventor who wishes patent protection in other countries must apply for a patent in each of the other countries or in regional patent offices. Almost every country has its own patent law, and a person desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for patent in that country, in accordance with the requirements of that country.
Tempest in a teacup on so many levels.
Besides, patent hasn't even been granted. Might never be, if dooglus is on the money.Tempest in a teacup on so many levels.
Well, it's possible that the patent never materializes in reality. However things tend to happen very fast in the Bitcoin universe. Therefore it seems appropriate to be prepared for the worst. When it comes to financial software, it's always good to have slightly paranoid people like Peter Todd on board. Better be safe than sorry.
Clearly this is not about being against innovation. The problem is, that this kind of innovation might not be equally available to all miners, which poses the risk of a malevolent mining cartel.
ya.ya.yo!
May seem like a double standard but the fact he is creating a aspect that could change bitcoin and at the same time limit who has access. So attempting to create a monoply, that is against bitcoin in my opinion and it strips away the mask of double standard.
Unless I'm missing something (possible, I only skimmed through their pdf), we're talking about ~20% boost? Better designed silicon from the same node process could offer more (and did in the past, and how!).'Far as limiting access, a huge chunk of Bitcoin hashpower was manufactured by a guy known only as Friedcat. How would one mount a case against that?
Plus straight from the horse):
Quote
Since the rights granted by a U.S. patent extend only throughout the territory of the United States and have no effect in a foreign country, an inventor who wishes patent protection in other countries must apply for a patent in each of the other countries or in regional patent offices. Almost every country has its own patent law, and a person desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for patent in that country, in accordance with the requirements of that country.
Tempest in a teacup on so many levels.
Besides, patent hasn't even been granted. Might never be, if dooglus is on the money. Tempest in a teacup on so many levels.
May seem like a double standard but the fact he is creating a aspect that could change bitcoin and at the same time limit who has access. So attempting to create a monoply, that is against bitcoin in my opinion and it strips away the mask of double standard.
Are you telling me that my idea is not mine because you had the same idea? That makes no sense.
No, I'm telling you that while I think it's pure coincidence that you had the same idea after reading theirs, you're just shit out of luck.
So even though you believe that we came up with the idea independently of each other, one person should be allowed to use the idea and the other shouldn't?
That really just makes no sense.
Just like you would be shit out of luck if you published Crime and Punishment (which you totally wrote on your own) a few years after Dostoyevsky published his.
Even though I totally believe you.
Even though I totally believe you.
You appear to be confusing patents and copyright. They're quite different things. You can't independently write the same novel. If I tried to publish a copy of an existing work then clearly I have copied it.
But chillax, the patent hasn't been granted yet, merely submitted (pending). If AsicBoost is as self-evident as you claim, no patent will be granted 
You have more faith in the patent system than I do.
As others have pointed out, this is all pointless rhetoric, since the Chinese (who'll most likely be making your next batch of silicon) don't particularly care about patent law & could release their next gen chips through some Belize corporation, perhaps with some catchy/original name, like AsicMiner.
So even if AsicBoost kids have the wherewithal to decap and conclusively prove, at gate level, that their patented methods are being used, good luck to them finding an entity to sue.
Are you telling me that my idea is not mine because you had the same idea? That makes no sense.
No, I'm telling you that while I think it's pure coincidence that you had the same idea after reading theirs, you're just shit out of luck.
So even though you believe that we came up with the idea independently of each other, one person should be allowed to use the idea and the other shouldn't?
That really just makes no sense.
Just like you would be shit out of luck if you published Crime and Punishment (which you totally wrote on your own) a few years after Dostoyevsky published his.
Even though I totally believe you.
Even though I totally believe you.
You appear to be confusing patents and copyright. They're quite different things. You can't independently write the same novel. If I tried to publish a copy of an existing work then clearly I have copied it.
But chillax, the patent hasn't been granted yet, merely submitted (pending). If AsicBoost is as self-evident as you claim, no patent will be granted
You have more faith in the patent system than I do.
The reality is 99% of this hardware is built in China and they all copy each other's designs without regard to intellectual property.
If the speedup was 2000% and all the hardware was made in the USA where patents are strongly enforced might be relevant but a minor 20% optimization is nothing we should be hard forking to avoid. Irrelevant - many design advances in ASIC, widely copied, have yielded far more than 20% boosts and Bitcoin has managed to survive.
If the speedup was 2000% and all the hardware was made in the USA where patents are strongly enforced might be relevant but a minor 20% optimization is nothing we should be hard forking to avoid. Irrelevant - many design advances in ASIC, widely copied, have yielded far more than 20% boosts and Bitcoin has managed to survive.
Which basically means free market died around 1474
BTW, you having a cow gives you "a monopoly [on that cow] at the expense of all other parties," which is "against free market principles."
BTW, you having a cow gives you "a monopoly [on that cow] at the expense of all other parties," which is "against free market principles."
Exactly. These socialist morons think patents are evil. Some companies spend 10s of millions to get an idea working - then the others just press one button and copy it and start selling it. It is no wonder the US has shitloads of VC money and Europe has none. If you are wondering why it is nearly impossible to make a startup in Europe - it is because the patent system is so weak compared to the US.
Are you telling me that my idea is not mine because you had the same idea? That makes no sense.
No, I'm telling you that while I think it's pure coincidence that you had the same idea after reading theirs, you're just shit out of luck. Just like you would be shit out of luck if you published Crime and Punishment (which you totally wrote on your own) a few years after Dostoyevsky published his.
Even though I totally believe you.
But chillax, the patent hasn't been granted yet, merely submitted (pending). If AsicBoost is as self-evident as you claim, no patent will be granted
No one is stopping you from mining, making ASICS, optimizing your shit to make it faster/more efficient. You just can't use AsicBoost's work. Not without paying for it. Because it's not yours.
I don't want to use their work. I want to use an optimization that I came up with independently, but which they are attempting to claim some kind of ownership of.
Are you telling me that my idea is not mine because you had the same idea? That makes no sense.
The AsicBoost debate is really interesting, I appreciate those folks that are taking the time to develop arguments here (whatever the position). I haven't really formulated an opinion on this issue, but this debate has jogged my memory about a patent I saw months ago while searching the Patent Office's records. I'll have to go back through some old notes to find what I think I read originally, but its something like the patent found here: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015138506A1. The title is: "A system and method for detecting intrusions through real-time processing of traffic with extensive historical perspective." A word search for "Bitcoin" will take you to this paragraph:
This means an internet provider, who probably sub-licenses routers to its customers fwiw, may be able and/or required to detect bitcoin mining and possibly node activity. This is a bigger potential threat than licensing a particular bit of ASIC tech IMHO; that's not to say the same strategy being debated RE: ASICBoost isn't applicable to mining detection. Consider what would happen if miners have to go through KYC compliance or meet some other regulation. Internet providers may be forced to act as deputies and report any detected mining or other related activity. If that is the case, home-miners could be persuaded to give up mining; miners able to continue might just decide to relocate and/or congregate in more friendly environments. I'm not intending to create a staw-person or a slippery slope argument here, I just think there may be bigger fish to fry (or to consider frying) vis-a-vis the patent scene.
Interesting theorization, but I doubt that this is what parties involved with mining that attended the roundtable are worried about. Would ISPs go that far to protect a patent, especially in China? They way I see this, existing ASIC manufacturers see AsicBoost as competition. Given that they wouldn't be able to use the tech freely due to the patent, they'd rather have devs make AsicBoost irrelevant other than having to submit to the competition. Quote
[00027] In some embodiments, a score module may be implemented to analyze the extracted item memory, score the detections in the type- structured data, and correlate the detections with host ID data. In some embodiments, the score module can run checks on the type- structured data to determine if any thresholds have been exceeded. In some embodiments, the score module may edit or update the host ID data (e.g. in host data) with new detection information. For instance, the score module may correlate newly detected bitcoin mining activity to an existing host ID and update the host ID with further information regarding the recent bitcoin activity. In some embodiments, the score module further comprises an alert agent which can generate alert data if a network attack threshold is exceeded. In some embodiments, the score module comprises a query agent which can retrieve data from the extracted item memory in response to network security
administrators or other network security devices. In some embodiments, the score module may generate the alert data or query responses as reporting output.
administrators or other network security devices. In some embodiments, the score module may generate the alert data or query responses as reporting output.
This means an internet provider, who probably sub-licenses routers to its customers fwiw, may be able and/or required to detect bitcoin mining and possibly node activity. This is a bigger potential threat than licensing a particular bit of ASIC tech IMHO; that's not to say the same strategy being debated RE: ASICBoost isn't applicable to mining detection. Consider what would happen if miners have to go through KYC compliance or meet some other regulation. Internet providers may be forced to act as deputies and report any detected mining or other related activity. If that is the case, home-miners could be persuaded to give up mining; miners able to continue might just decide to relocate and/or congregate in more friendly environments. I'm not intending to create a staw-person or a slippery slope argument here, I just think there may be bigger fish to fry (or to consider frying) vis-a-vis the patent scene.
The AsicBoost debate is really interesting, I appreciate those folks that are taking the time to develop arguments here (whatever the position). I haven't really formulated an opinion on this issue, but this debate has jogged my memory about a patent I saw months ago while searching the Patent Office's records. I'll have to go back through some old notes to find what I think I read originally, but its something like the patent found here: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015138506A1. The title is: "A system and method for detecting intrusions through real-time processing of traffic with extensive historical perspective." A word search for "Bitcoin" will take you to this paragraph:
This means an internet provider, who probably sub-licenses routers to its customers fwiw, may be able and/or required to detect bitcoin mining and possibly node activity. This is a bigger potential threat than licensing a particular bit of ASIC tech IMHO; that's not to say the same strategy being debated RE: ASICBoost isn't applicable to mining detection. Consider what would happen if miners have to go through KYC compliance or meet some other regulation. Internet providers may be forced to act as deputies and report any detected mining or other related activity. If that is the case, home-miners could be persuaded to give up mining; miners able to continue might just decide to relocate and/or congregate in more friendly environments. I'm not intending to create a staw-person or a slippery slope argument here, I just think there may be bigger fish to fry (or to consider frying) vis-a-vis the patent scene.
Quote
[00027] In some embodiments, a score module may be implemented to analyze the extracted item memory, score the detections in the type- structured data, and correlate the detections with host ID data. In some embodiments, the score module can run checks on the type- structured data to determine if any thresholds have been exceeded. In some embodiments, the score module may edit or update the host ID data (e.g. in host data) with new detection information. For instance, the score module may correlate newly detected bitcoin mining activity to an existing host ID and update the host ID with further information regarding the recent bitcoin activity. In some embodiments, the score module further comprises an alert agent which can generate alert data if a network attack threshold is exceeded. In some embodiments, the score module comprises a query agent which can retrieve data from the extracted item memory in response to network security
administrators or other network security devices. In some embodiments, the score module may generate the alert data or query responses as reporting output.
administrators or other network security devices. In some embodiments, the score module may generate the alert data or query responses as reporting output.
This means an internet provider, who probably sub-licenses routers to its customers fwiw, may be able and/or required to detect bitcoin mining and possibly node activity. This is a bigger potential threat than licensing a particular bit of ASIC tech IMHO; that's not to say the same strategy being debated RE: ASICBoost isn't applicable to mining detection. Consider what would happen if miners have to go through KYC compliance or meet some other regulation. Internet providers may be forced to act as deputies and report any detected mining or other related activity. If that is the case, home-miners could be persuaded to give up mining; miners able to continue might just decide to relocate and/or congregate in more friendly environments. I'm not intending to create a staw-person or a slippery slope argument here, I just think there may be bigger fish to fry (or to consider frying) vis-a-vis the patent scene.
Worst case it is like a tax, if it really works, then every coin mined, they collect a small amount, say .05 coin.
Overall miner save 20%.
This is a win win situation.
I don't think asicboost will closely control patent, running their mining business, not let anybody use it etc. that will be against free market principal.
Overall miner save 20%.
This is a win win situation.
I don't think asicboost will closely control patent, running their mining business, not let anybody use it etc. that will be against free market principal.
if everyone will save 20% then it's like none are saving anything, the same condition as before, the same profit
what will happen if this is only the first of many patents? will we change code everytime that happens in the future?
You know, that's a good question. And in AsicBoost's case, we don't even know how they're planning to market their technology but I'm sure that harming bitcoin would be against their interest. The HK agreement that Todd cites was a roundtable that several people from bitcoin ASIC manufacturing companies (Bitmain, BitFury, Spondoolies-Tech) and pools (GHash.IO, F2Pool, BW, BTCC). I'm sure that those people wouldn't want patented technologies competing with them but this isn't really in the best interest of the bitcoin user. There's a lot of money at stake but forking bitcoin specifically to make a technology irrelevant mostly helps big miners. I don't think we want the dev's to start trying to actively manage what is and is not allowed, unless there is an overwhelming consensus that something needs to be proscribed to maintain network security. (Which is not the case here.) If someone has a bright idea to improve mining, why not let them make a profit off it? The chance to make a profit provides a powerful incentive to innovate.
what will happen if this is only the first of many patents? will we change code everytime that happens in the future?
You know, that's a good question. And in AsicBoost's case, we don't even know how they're planning to market their technology but I'm sure that harming bitcoin would be against their interest. The HK agreement that Todd cites was a roundtable that several people from bitcoin ASIC manufacturing companies (Bitmain, BitFury, Spondoolies-Tech) and pools (GHash.IO, F2Pool, BW, BTCC) attended. I'm sure that those people wouldn't want patented technologies competing with them but this isn't really in the best interest of the bitcoin user. There's a lot of money at stake but forking bitcoin specifically to make a technology irrelevant mostly helps big miners.
No more hashs = more secure.
what will happen if this is only the first of many patents? will we change code everytime that happens in the future?
The speed increase of 20% sounds innovative.
But patenting of mining, sounds like a strange way. Patents is part of the state, or government law. Yes, the state eyeing Bitcoin, but not all states is so loyal to Bitcoins. In my opinion, a patent on it is superfluous.
But patenting of mining, sounds like a strange way. Patents is part of the state, or government law. Yes, the state eyeing Bitcoin, but not all states is so loyal to Bitcoins. In my opinion, a patent on it is superfluous.
No, that's wrong. If ever miner licensed the optimization and so was able to mine 25% cheaper, all that would happen is that the difficulty rises 25%. Everyone ends up mining the same number of coins, and the patent troll collects his 5% tax from every miner.
And this is different from bying more efficient ASIC hardware ...how?
This is different than buying more efficient hardware because I am free to buy the hardware from any vendor I like, or create my own. There's no law telling me that if I want to use the more efficient mining algorithm I need to gain permission from a particular person.
Should I let you copy my GDSII files without paying me? Because I wouldn't want to impinge on your natural rights to just snag whatever you want.
No one is stopping you from mining, making ASICS, optimizing your shit to make it faster/more efficient. You just can't use AsicBoost's work. Not without paying for it. Because it's not yours.
BTW, you don't understand what a patent troll is. For starters, it is not the actual author of a work/inventor.
"a patent troll is a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art"
In this case the idea being patented is the that of not repeating the same calculation multiple times. It's hardly a novel idea. Requiring a licence before allowing people to omit repeating the same calculation multiple times isn't right.
If the idea is unoriginal, begging, and self-evident, how is it that none of the ASIC manufacturers hit upon it in all these years? Is it because "repeating the same calculation multiple times" is appropriately Goldbergian for Bitcoin? So they decided to lose some money & just keep doing it all these years for the heck of it, as a whimsical baroque flourish?
Anyhow, i'm certain there are hundreds of other [equally] self-evident things you could omit, without paying a cent to anyone. Do that