Topic: Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wu’s been up to. - page 12. (Read 19997 times)

Good point, wouldn't want to be the person trying to uphold a patent in china  . Ah the endless human struggle for those with lots of money and power to have even more money and more power.. same story since the beginning of time.. don't know why anyone would expect anything different with both sides.

Some changes are outright impossible, HF or SF.

Segwit in particular can be done as a HF that is compatible with secret ASICboost.

And ASICBoosting still works with segwit SF, but it has to be the overt method rather than the secret method, the overt method works with antminers.

doesn't segwit make a complete second merkle tree inorder to be backward compatible??

ahhh the technical details are to vague , and i'm not sure we can trust core to give us a straight answer.

can we implement segwit and all these other SF's without breaking asicboost?

lets ask the BU devs!

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.

The covert boost is incompatible with protocol "updowngrades". Overt boost is not incompatible. But overt boost requires paying patent fees.

Bitmain checkmated Blockstream. Lol.

(you guys are slow to assimilate all the facts)

right i guess we can always slap on a new header and only this is New header is the segwit-ASICBOOST-breaking-bit required.
this could be soft forked in.

making ASICBOOST still possible even with segwit.

its unclear tho, because the FUD going around is that ASICBOOST miners simply cant do pretty much any upgrades

My understanding is messing with the merkle root breaks covert ASICBoosting. It does not matter if it is a SF or HF. This makes many network upgrades impossible, there is a list floating around of changes that are outright incompatible with covert ASICBoosting as they change the merkle root in a way that breaks this. Segwit however, can be done as a HF without messing with the merkel root.

You're incompetent and should STFU. Now you are conflating the consensus of transaction ordering, with modifications to the protocol.

Bitcoin's protocol game theory is political clusterfuck, by design to protect the immutability of the protocol.

Right, so just do a HF that provides access to whatever new "features" and don't change the header -- or allow extra information at the end of the header, which is all that is necessary for ASICBOOST (per my understanding)

Just about perfect. The problem with development it needs to be done one at a time with Bitcoin due to its decentralised nature. Having so many factions at once trying to force their ideas is confusing many people and creating divisions. Bitcoin is consensus and can only consent to one change at a time.

Why would he be sued?

Surely he can use whatever hardware he wants, and as a miner he doesn't have to support segwit if he doesn't want to. Isn't that what decentralisation means?

ASICBOOST requires additional technology therefore makes it more difficult to perform some kind of double spend/51%/orphan attack.

Forcing miners to check more hashes to find a block is like telling a high school student to use long division when they can do the calculation in their head. Both ways get the same answer, and sometimes students might have to use long division anyway.

i dont think it matters much if its soft or hard, from the sound of it any change to the header is going to break ASICBOOST

Bitmain has to decide between four choices. It's a gamble.
1. Stick to the Bitcore core and continue making money as present.
2. Do a hardfork with BU and if the community stays with Core then the value of BU would be low - Bitmain earns less money.
3. If community moves to BU then Bitmain will potentially make more money. However the Full Nodes count is in favour of Core. https://coin.dance/nodes
4. Mess with the whole Bitcoin economy, driving money elsewhere and Bitcoin price will sink below $100 - Bitmain will lose big time.

I don't particularly like SFs anyway.

It is also my understanding there is a fairly small subset of SFs that are not compatible with ASICBOOST, and SFs could be tailored to ASICBOOST.

I have seen no evidence even presented that this is taking place. I also strongly suspect that there is astroturfing going on in Reddit regarding this issue -- there is simply too much discussion about this that is one sided, although maxwell is sensationalizing the issue.

Ver is likely waiting for all the facts to come out.

Lol. Your two sentences are mutual conflicting.


What does that diversionary tactic which will never happen have to do with anything in reality?


Put your BTC on the furk, and lose furking all of it to the whales. It is your destiny.


Afaik there have been no hard forks of Bitcoin other than backing out a bug that Core created, which made the Trilemma whale furious and he said @gmaxwell is an idiot and is his slave. Afaik, there was a soft fork that had no opposition at all. I suppose the whales don't take a strong stance against soft forks which are only fixing reliability and security, and not modifying the economic game theory protocol.

Afaik, those modifications did not modify the free market immutability of the protocol.

Clearly though Blockstream has planned to hijack the protocol with SegWit. And the whales have stopped it.

Larger blocks will not be allowed.


You'll never get them.

Scaling is impossible with larger blocks, because the orphan rate is an exponential function of the block size. BU is idiotic shit. Xthin has a game theory will enables larger hashrate and better connectivity miners to attack lesser miners.

Exponential shit does not scale. If you don't know this, then you don't even know basics of computer science.

There is no point to increasing the blocksize, because it isn't a scaling solution. There isn't any size of block that scales. You've got to scale off chain. But Blockstream is not going to be allowed to mutate Bitcoin's protocol.

That is the reality, whether you like it or not.

I dont freaking care if Jihan is cheating or not.  I want bigger blocks.  I wanted them 2 years ago.

Having the right to protect one's patent doesn't give one the right to dictate the terms of Bitcoin evolution. Bitcoin is decentralised and should not be dictated by anyone to their agenda/advantage. It it driven by consensus and not miners.
Not true. Why does BU set it at 75%? (according to reports.)
Bitcoin needs to evolve according the Satoshi's whitepaper and any improvement must be welcomed. Of course rigorous testing and reading of codes is done before any release.
Bitcoin has already been modified to increase reliability, security, etc. However some modifications made should be removed, but that another story.

would anyone of these patents hold up in court...