https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/
Short summary:
- We have asicboost designed in our chips but we don’t use it.
- We can legally use asicboost if we want in China.
- If you think we use it, prove that we do.
Topic: Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wu’s been up to. - page 11. (Read 19997 times)
Statement from Bitmain (Jihan Wu):
https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/
Short summary:
https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/
Short summary:
would anyone of these patents hold up in court...
How many patents are pooed all over every single day in China? It must be tens or hundreds of thousands. Perhaps some deep pockets might be prepared to assert it but it's probably a dead idea before it even got going.
When ASICboost was patented, Gmaxwell and Peter Todd wanted to block ASICboost BECAUSE they're opposed to software patents, now they could be screaming that using ASICboost is "an exploit" because of the patent, and seek to enforce it?! Too funny.
What is this garbage about ASICBOOST being an exploit? First off, the technique was patented by 2 Core devs in 2016. Second, it's simply a way to hash more efficiently. If it really does break Segwit, well then fix Segwit, or trash it!
The crap about Bitmain breaking patent law - well maybe Gmaxwell broke the law when he reversed the ASIC?
The problem that most are having is not necessarily the use of AsicBoost, but the covert use of it while supporting improvements that are only compatible with said AsicBoost.
Mr. Szabo chimes in:
"Secret mining advantage is expected. The problem is incentive to oppose incompatible upgrades for secret reasons."
https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/849800229696045058
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfw1ewe/?context=3
And one of the replies was "Optimising algorithm implementation is not an exploit. SHA256 is quantum-resistant. Never figured you for propagandist."
If anything I see this as a strike against Segwit - how the f*ck did Segwit manage to change bitcoin mining parameters to such a degree that they broke an ASIC that does almost nothing other than hashing!?
And now Segwit is "needed for Bitcoin to thrive"?! LOL it's needed for Lightning to thrive, and for Bitcoin to become a settlement layer.
Now 100% Core.
trying to assume that asics were hard programmed to actively attack segwit
I don't think anyone is saying that
and now the burst your bubble moment
ASICS have been around alot longer than segwit has.
trying to assume that asics were hard programmed to actively attack segwit is like blaming a caveman for something invented much much later.
let me guess Jihan has a time machine and seen october 2016's segwit code and and went back in time to 2015 and started building the blueprints for the s9 specifically to hurt segwit
p.s im using gmaxwells announcement of him reverse engineering a chip... (before you propaganda twist it into being about software)
afterall your all complaining about bitmain (hardware company) not CGminer (software company)
ASICS have been around alot longer than segwit has.
trying to assume that asics were hard programmed to actively attack segwit is like blaming a caveman for something invented much much later.
let me guess Jihan has a time machine and seen october 2016's segwit code and and went back in time to 2015 and started building the blueprints for the s9 specifically to hurt segwit
p.s im using gmaxwells announcement of him reverse engineering a chip... (before you propaganda twist it into being about software)
afterall your all complaining about bitmain (hardware company) not CGminer (software company)
Fucking over everyone using bitcoin is great... Potential user sees a group that's able to game the system with an advantage, and want's to run the other way. Was it illegal, who knows. Amoral, unethical, fucked up central banker shit absolutely.
Well I would agree that given the context of Bitcoin that everyone should be able to compete fairly, a patent should be unenforceable, but I wouldn't blame Jihan for trying to mine. Everyone using ASICs is trying to gain an advantage.
Ridiculous imo to try to change the PoW... its the last thing Core should be doing.
Having an exploit and using it is one thing. Especially when that thing is a sizeable advantage. But an entirely different thing to manipulate the environment, in order to maintain that advantage. You should evolve, not.stagnate everyone else. I hate this about DC politics, hate to see it in BTC as well
Tell M$ that!
Here's something else.
If Bitmain sold miners to other pools without telling them how to implement their exploit (or tell them about it at all) and THEN blocked upgrades to Bitcoin to protect their advantage, they would've intentionally ripped off their customers.
That would depend on the laws of those countries.
People do point out your total nonsense, but not anyone on your approved list.
Have fun in the word-salad echo chambers you create, with your cod-philosophy, cod-science band of cheap street magicians
Have fun in the word-salad echo chambers you create, with your cod-philosophy, cod-science band of cheap street magicians
It doesn't matter how convoluted, obfuscated and labyrinthine your lies are, lies do not cut it in the information age.
If I had spoken lies, there are smart people lurking (e.g. @dinofelis) who would have pointed them out. I would appreciate and expect peers to do so.
Carlton did you study computer science? Did you program for 37 years? No. So please understand why you don't understand.
Edit: Carlton is now on Ignore for the reply he made to this post. I had given numerous chances and pleaded with him to act civil (not only in this thread).
It doesn't matter how convoluted, obfuscated and labyrinthine your lies are, lies do not cut it in the information age.
Speak the truth, and know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
Speak the truth, and know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
The compression techniques you mention are also not scaling. Scaling is when there is no limitation of transaction rate. Doing that on chain with Satoshi's PoW is impossible. It is possible to do on chain with an entirely different system.
I agree off chain payment channels are highly limited in what they can do, except for the case of trusting centralized hubs in which it isn't really Bitcoin any more and is private fractional reserve banking. The centralized hubs private banking might actually scale out for some things well. I'd rather see everything on chain, but we are talking about what is available today, not vaporware.
I agree off chain payment channels are highly limited in what they can do, except for the case of trusting centralized hubs in which it isn't really Bitcoin any more and is private fractional reserve banking. The centralized hubs private banking might actually scale out for some things well. I'd rather see everything on chain, but we are talking about what is available today, not vaporware.
Schnorr sigs are available today, it exists. The schema for improving tx encoding efficiency was produced by Core devs recently, it exists.
Whether it is available or not is irrelevant. You can try re-reading what I wrote. Maybe you can comprehend it, if you read it a few times.
You're basically master of waffling nonsense.
Here we go again. Do I finally have to put your jealous Dunning-Kruger ass on Ignore? Or can you behave yourself.
I'll tell you what I told you last time. I don't go stalking you and hating on you.
word-salad.
combination of nonsense buzzwords
combination of nonsense buzzwords
That it is noise to you but you don't realize it is your lack of comprehension, is precisely the Dunning-Kruger effect.
The compression techniques you mention are also not scaling. Scaling is when there is no limitation of transaction rate. Doing that on chain with Satoshi's PoW is impossible. It is possible to do on chain with an entirely different system.
I agree off chain payment channels are highly limited in what they can do, except for the case of trusting centralized hubs in which it isn't really Bitcoin any more and is private fractional reserve banking. The centralized hubs private banking might actually scale out for some things well. I'd rather see everything on chain, but we are talking about what is available today, not vaporware.
I agree off chain payment channels are highly limited in what they can do, except for the case of trusting centralized hubs in which it isn't really Bitcoin any more and is private fractional reserve banking. The centralized hubs private banking might actually scale out for some things well. I'd rather see everything on chain, but we are talking about what is available today, not vaporware.
Schnorr sigs are available today, it exists. The schema for improving tx encoding efficiency was produced by Core devs recently, it exists. The only thing that doesn't exist is the veracity or empirical proof thereof contained in your laughable, execrable word-salad.
You're basically master of waffling nonsense. You're becoming so desperate, that you're performing the techno-babble trolling equivalent of that scene from "The Exorcist" with the mid-air spinning projectile vomiting, spewing out every combination of nonsense buzzwords you can muster as your head does 360 degree spins about your shoulders.
You've been told already, pull your pants up, we don't need to see your naked sophistry, thank you very much
I think the main issue with patents is if there is a patent, you can't make the chips, very few foundries will take your business if there is a patent in their country
Already refuted before you wrote it:
Also the thing with the covert ASIC design, I am fairly certain foundries can't detect whether the ASIC allows it or not. I think it is possible to put all the key logic in a separate CPU controller. So if I am correct on that assumption, then the foundries can't block it and they can't be sued for patent infringement either.
Bitmain being in China, can't be sued. It is a very clever separation-of-concerns ploy they did. I am impressed.
Bitmain being in China, can't be sued. It is a very clever separation-of-concerns ploy they did. I am impressed.
If those miners tried instead to do overt boost, they would have to pay patent fees because asicboost is patented outside of China by Blockstream's Sergio Lerner.
Technically it's patent-pending...
But afaik, still accrue liability for patent fees once the patent has been filed, unless it is invalidated in court.
Why would non-China miners risk the liability if they have the option to mine covertly and avoid provable culpability.
Even China miners prefer to mine covertly, so there can't be any pressure put on China.
I think the main issue with patents is if there is a patent, you can't make the chips, very few foundries will take your business if there is a patent in their country, why would they risk an expensive lawsuit. Foundries are very picky on clientele, even BFL had trouble getting a foundry to work with them, they weren't interested in the millions of dollars they had, they wanted 10's of millions before they'd let them in the door.
I really don't see patent holders going after miners. Much like I don't expect to be sued by Nike for wearing fake sneakers or sued by the guy who has a patent on uploading files to the internet. The money is going after the manufacturers and billion dollar foundries. The level of infringement commited by miners is nothing compared to the manufacturer.
If those miners tried instead to do overt boost, they would have to pay patent fees because asicboost is patented outside of China by Blockstream's Sergio Lerner.
Technically it's patent-pending...
But afaik, still accrue liability for patent fees once the patent has been filed, unless it is invalidated in court.
Why would non-China miners risk the liability if they have the option to mine covertly and avoid provable culpability.
Even China miners prefer to mine covertly, so there can't be any pressure put on China.
You've got to scale off chain. But Blockstream is not going to be allowed to mutate Bitcoin's protocol.
That's where you're wrong.
On-chain is the on-ramp to off-chain, and off-chain solutions are not a suitable for every use-case anyway. On-chain scaling can be achieved, by changing the use of network resources such that those resources are used at a lower rate (Schnorr sigs decreased size compared to the current ECDSA sigs, and improved tx encoding being the primary possibilities IMO, but no doubt more are possible)
The compression techniques you mention are also not scaling. Scaling is when there is no limitation of transaction rate. Doing that on chain with Satoshi's PoW is impossible. It is possible to do on chain with an entirely different system.
I agree off chain payment channels are highly limited in what they can do, except for the case of trusting centralized hubs in which it isn't really Bitcoin any more and is private fractional reserve banking. The centralized hubs private banking might actually scale out for some things well. I'd rather see everything on chain, but we are talking about what is available today, not vaporware.
If those miners tried instead to do overt boost, they would have to pay patent fees because asicboost is patented outside of China by Blockstream's Sergio Lerner.
Technically it's patent-pending...
would anyone of these patents hold up in court...
How many patents are pooed all over every single day in China? It must be tens or hundreds of thousands. Perhaps some deep pockets might be prepared to assert it but it's probably a dead idea before it even got going.
What does China have to do with it when Bitmain's mining hardware is used all over the world.
When Bitcoin (and Bitmain) is attacked with an overt BIP, they'll release the firmware upgrades so that those miners can do the covert boost to kill the BIP.
If those miners tried instead to do overt boost, they would have to pay patent fees because asicboost is patented outside of China by Blockstream's Sergio Lerner.
There is no point to increasing the blocksize, because it isn't a scaling solution. There isn't any size of block that scales.
Hey, stop stealing my lines!
And you're right, increasing the blocksize increases the transaction rate linearly in relation to the factor by which the blocksize is increased. That's not scaling, the capacity increases, but using the network resources at the same rate.
You've got to scale off chain. But Blockstream is not going to be allowed to mutate Bitcoin's protocol.
That's where you're wrong.
On-chain is the on-ramp to off-chain, and off-chain solutions are not a suitable for every use-case anyway. On-chain scaling can be achieved, by changing the use of network resources such that those resources are used at a lower rate (Schnorr sigs decreased size compared to the current ECDSA sigs, and improved tx encoding being the primary possibilities IMO, but no doubt more are possible)
But give us all a laugh, tell us about your super secret software designs that will blow the world away, y'know, the endless list of projects that you talk about (for 6 years and counting) and never release
Jump to: