some clarification on those "facts":
1. Jihan supported before understanding the final SegWit Implementation code.
2. Extension blocks do not change the Coinbase references, only add new anchor txs.
3. This comment is jumping the gun. In depth investigations begin now.
4. This data set should be larger and go farther back in time. Likely prior to the patent dates.
The ASICBoost could be throttled from time to time to prevent obvious indicators.
5. Fees are irrelevant here. The exploit centers around gaining more block rewards.
In a future with less block reward and more fees, this exploit is worthless.
6. We need independent verification, which will begin now.
so your saying they did go back in time and made S9chips to include asic boost to attack segwit..
wow amazing.
or logic dictates that segwit wasnt programmed well to actually work with asic efficiency boosts.
Hint: which is easier
1. go back in time by 2 years and undo hardware changes to meet temporary software requirements just 6 months ago, just for some blockstreamer
2. get the centralist blockstream team to now change their code seeing as its only been in public for 6 months and not even active code yet
calling an efficiency boost an attack, even though the efficiency boost existed prior to the code that is supposedly being attacked.. has been the funniest twist of words by greg this month.
anyway
just done some quick maths
* stats at time of post
hmm
looks like BTCC and F2pool are the ones making more blocks than their hash %
not the other way round
*for those wishing to question the numbers
* stats at time of post
hmm
looks like BTCC and F2pool are the ones making more blocks than their hash %
not the other way round
*for those wishing to question the numbers
i would have expected antpool to have a block % of something in the 40's while having hash in the 30's if all this gmaxwell PoW propaganda was real
definitely not less than their hash%