Author: Russell O'Connor 2017-04-06 13:55:31
Published on: 2017-04-06T13:55:31+00:00
The email conversation starts with a clarification that the proposal does not prevent miners from using overt ASICBOOST. The author states that it is much easier to implement and questions the objection to it. Jonathan Toomim, in his reply, draws parallels between this situation and the DAO fork. He points out that developers are trying to modify the code to negate the gains of an entity who found an unintended characteristic of the code and made use of it. Toomim acknowledges that there are differences between the two situations, as the DAO attacker was explicitly malicious while Bitmain is optimizing their hardware better than anyone else. However, he still believes that both cases involve developers proposing changes to the blockchain rules to reduce the wealth of a single entity. In the case of the DAO fork, users were stealing back stolen funds, but that justification doesn't apply here. On the other hand, reducing the value of hardware investments is less direct and maybe more justifiable.Toomim expresses his dislike for patented mining algorithms and playing Calvin Ball on the blockchain. He believes that rule changes should not be used to disempower and impoverish particular entities without very good reason. Whether patenting a mining optimization qualifies as a good reason is questionable.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T23:40:44.506303+00:00