Mustafa Al-Bassam [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2016-03-10 to 2018-04-09
💬 Posted a total of 10 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:50:03

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-04-06
📝 Original message:It will prevent companies from legally selling mining rigs with the
improvement, which stems access to the improvement in patented
countries. Or miners can export rigs with the improvement from companies
that sell it in non-patented countries.
It is not purely a software thing - it is intended to be used by
modifying hardware. From the paper: "The performance gain is achieved
through a high-level optimization of the Bitcoin mining algorithm which
allows for drastic reduction in gate count on the mining chip. AsicBoost
is applicable to all types of mining hardware and chip designs."
Ultimately though, I think you're right in that Bitcoin's mining and
decentralized design combined with an international economy makes
patenting mining algorithms effectively pointless.
Mustafa
On 06/04/16 12:57, Marek Palatinus wrote:
> To my understanding it is purely software thing. It cannot be detected
> from outside if miner uses this improvement or not. So patenting it is
> worthless.
>
> slush
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> Alternatively scenario: it will cause a sudden increase of Bitcoin
> mines in countries where the algorithm is not patented, possibly
> causing a geographical decentralization of miners from countries
> that already have a lot of miners like China (if it is patented in
> China).
>
> On 01/04/16 10:00, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:41:40PM -0700, Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I'd like to announce a white paper that describes a very new and
>>> significant algorithmic improvement to the Bitcoin mining process which has
>>> never been discussed in public before. The white paper can be found here:
>>>
>>> http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/~Timo.Hanke/AsicBoostWhitepaperrev5.pdf
>>> <http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/%7ETimo.Hanke/AsicBoostWhitepaperrev5.pdf>
>> What steps are you going to take to make sure that this improvement is
>> available to all ASIC designers/mfgs on a equal opportunity basis?
>>
>> The fact that you've chosen to patent this improvement could be a
>> centralization concern depending on the licensing model used. For example, one
>> could imagine a licensing model that gave one manufacture exclusive rights.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160406/479b0423/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:50:03

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-04-04
📝 Original message:Alternatively scenario: it will cause a sudden increase of Bitcoin mines
in countries where the algorithm is not patented, possibly causing a
geographical decentralization of miners from countries that already have
a lot of miners like China (if it is patented in China).
On 01/04/16 10:00, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:41:40PM -0700, Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I'd like to announce a white paper that describes a very new and
>> significant algorithmic improvement to the Bitcoin mining process which has
>> never been discussed in public before. The white paper can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/~Timo.Hanke/AsicBoostWhitepaperrev5.pdf
> What steps are you going to take to make sure that this improvement is
> available to all ASIC designers/mfgs on a equal opportunity basis?
>
> The fact that you've chosen to patent this improvement could be a
> centralization concern depending on the licensing model used. For example, one
> could imagine a licensing model that gave one manufacture exclusive rights.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160405/41cbbc99/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:49:45

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2016-03-09
📝 Original message:> the soft-fork does not become Final for as long as such a hard-fork
has potentially-majority support, or at most three months.
This wording is awkward. What is "potentially-majority"?
>A hard-fork BIP requires adoption from the entire Bitcoin economy,
particularly including those selling desirable goods and services in
exchange for bitcoin payments, as well as Bitcoin holders who wish to
spend or would spend their bitcoins (including selling for other
currencies) differently in the event of such a hard-fork.
What if one shop owner, for example, out of thousands, doesn't adapt the
hard-fork? It is expected, and should perhaps be encouraged, for a small
minority to not accept a hard fork, but by the wording of the BIP
("entire Bitcoin economy"), one shop owner can veto a hard-fork.
Mustafa
On 08/03/16 19:04, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It has been about 1 month since BIP 2 finished receiving comments, so I
> believe it is an appropriate time to begin the process of moving it to Final
> Status. Toward this end, I have opened a pull request:
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/350
>
> The current requirement for this is that "the reference implementation is
> complete and accepted by the community". Given the vagueness of this criteria,
> I intend to move forward applying BIP 2's more specific criteria to itself:
>
>> A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves rough
>> consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have rough
>> consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development mailing list
>> for at least one month, and no person maintains any unaddressed
>> substantiated objections to it. Addressed or obstructive objections may be
>> ignored/overruled by general agreement that they have been sufficiently
>> addressed, but clear reasoning must be given in such circumstances.
> Furthermore, there is a reference implementation in the mentioned PR.
>
> Please review the latest draft BIP and provide any objections ASAP.
> If there are no outstanding objections on 2016 April 9th, I will consider the
> current draft to have reached rough consensus and update its Status to Final
> by merging the PR.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev