4 ms·
> The "problem" being that instead of being a proof of actual work, shortcuts in the work were found. The same "problem" occurred when people invented GPU mini
by wyager 10y ago
> The "problem" being that instead of being a proof of actual work, shortcuts in the work were found.
The same "problem" occurred when people invented GPU mining, then FPGA mining, then ASIC mining. As long as SHA256 isn't broken, it doesn't matter what kind of speedup miners manage to get; whenever someone finds a big advantage, everyone else uses it soon enough.
> Different basis of hashes are obvious
"Use more hash functions" is sort of a reflexive response you get a lot from non-cryptographers, but the intuitive reason this is a bad idea is that if your hash function isn't broken, your cryptosystem shouldn't be either. It's better to fix the cryptosystem than to half-assedly patch it over by obfuscating any problems with more hash functions.
> but maybe some type of actual work every so often as well.
What do you mean by "actual work"? In all likelihood, whatever you're thinking of has none of the properties that make PoW a viable mechanism for sybil resistance.
- petertodd 10y ago> everyone else uses it soon enough. Unfortunately in this case, ASICBOOST is both patented, and adds a fair bit of complexity to mining hardware. Both these problems have the undesirable effect of increasing the barriers to entry for new asic manufacturers - an undesirable thing from the point of view of Bitcoin users. You're quite correct that shortcuts are irrelevant, but the reality of manufacturing makes the playing field a lot less level than we'd like.
- shea256 10y agoExactly, I'd go further and say that if a particular technique is patented and cannot be matched by a related technique, giving a permanent unfair advantage, it is up to the community to change the proof of work and work around the advantage imposed by a state monopoly.
- jcoffland 10y agoThen Bitcoin has to hard fork every time someone comes up with a new patentable idea. I don't see why people think mining must be fair. It only has to not become completely centralized.
- tlrobinson 10y agoBut if one miner has a significant advantage for a long enough time then mining will become unprofitable for everyone else, ultimately leading to nearly complete centralization.
- Taek 10y agoPeople forget that profits can be reinvested. If one miner has 10% extra profits, they will have 10% extra hashrate growth. This leads to effective monopoly.
- um_ya 10y agoHard fork isn't required to fix this issue.
- Taek 10y agoSomeone who can control the majority of the hashrate can enforce a transaction whitelist. Bitcoin's independence from the state requires the world superpowers are not able to control a majority of the hashrate.
- midmagico 10y ago> Bitcoin's independence from the state requires the world superpowers are not able to control a majority of the hashrate. Too late. :-)
- gcb0 10y ago> both patented and adds complexity just like any CPU or GPU solutions. just because they are more readily available you can ignore it for those cases?
- midmagico 10y agoNobody is saying we have to close off ASICBoost. Just the covert method of it which is incentive-incompatible with important protocol upgrades.
- Itsdijital 10y ago>ASICBOOST is both patented China be like, lol "patented"
- TD-Linux 10y agoNot only that, Bitmain (the miner implied to be using ASICBOOST covertly) copied the American patent and submitted it to the Chinese patent system. It's not yet granted, though.
- MertsA 10y ago>The same "problem" occurred when people invented GPU mining, then FPGA mining, then ASIC mining. As long as SHA256 isn't broken, it doesn't matter what kind of speedup miners manage to get This isn't a break of SHA256 obviously but it is a break of the PoW for Bitcoin. The whole point is that you have to hash the same amount of data for each attempt to find a block. ASICBOOST is about not having to hash the same amount of data. This isn't a speedup of the hashing algorithm, this is about avoiding needing to hash the same amount of data for every attempt. Call it an optimization if you want, but Bitcoin was designed with the goal that this wasn't possible.
- midmagico 10y agoCorrect! And yet nobody is seriously (i.e. with code in a PR) wanting to completely disable all forms of ASICBoost. Just the covert kind which is incompatible with a bunch of important protocol upgrades and interesting ideas that make Bitcoin stronger.