Quote from: iamnotback on April 14, 2017, 11:08:21 PM

Satoshi was so genius that he designed the AsicBoost into the design.

I think that this is where you go off the deep end. Asic boost is nothing particular, and doesn't mean much, it is just a slightly smarter scheme to calculate hashes. The whole thing about asic boost is that one of the Core devs patented it ; this could not have been foreseen by Satoshi that in 2016, a core guy would take a patent on it, and not someone else would find it and make it public domain, or that an asic producer would have patented it.

There's nothing particular about asic boost, and has nothing to do with "double hashing". It has to do with the typical structure of block-cypher-like hash functions that have a "data" and a "hash" input like a block cypher has a "key schedule" and a "data" part, and the Merkle-Damgard extension attack. The "double hash" (which IS part of the PoW scheme) doesn't alter this. The "asic-boost" scheme is applicable to any such Merkle-Damgard scheme with a block-cypher-like structure, where one can save one "key schedule" in the loop if one needs to do PoW.

Quote

I can say that with great confidence because double-hashing defeats attacks such as AsicBoost, and Satoshi did double-hashing as a precaution every where it could be required in his design except for the proof-of-work.

This is not right. First of all, bitcoin uses double hashing in PoW. In fact, Satoshi used double hashing everywhere, not really knowing, visibly, what it was meant for (to avoid an extension attack of the Merkle Damgard construction of the *final hash*). He used it where it didn't have any meaning also. Second, asicboost has nothing to do with double hashing. In fact, its efficiency is seriously reduced by the double hashing: if it were single hashing, its improvement wouldn't have been 20% but near 50%.

==> I propose that you now say that Satoshi was a genius BECAUSE he applied double hashing in PoW, so that Asicboost couldn't suddenly rise the hashing capacity to 50% and cause a 51% attack.

So:
a) Satoshi doesn't introduce double hashing in PoW: he's a genius (turns out not to be the case)
b) Satoshi does introduce double hashing in PoW: he's a genius (this is how bitcoin does it)

Mmm. Satoshi is a genius, even if he writes 1 + 1 = 3, I suppose.

Quote

He managed to think far ahead on the game theory and realized he would need a poison pill to ensure that no one could modify his evil design.

Mmm. It is about time you wake up of your delusion here. You're an extremely smart guy. But I've seen other smart people go off the deep end because they locked themselves up in such kind of delusion. In fact, Nash himself is such an example. Goedel also. Take a step back and think twice, whether what you are claiming has any rational sense and isn't a self-referential argument, and you may see why this is not an on-purpose design:

- asic boost's "poison pill" only comes about because it happened to be a Core guy that put a patent on it (if ever it is upheld in court). If it would have been someone else, or if it were open domain, the "poison pill" wouldn't have its effect. The double hash structure limits the ASIC boost efficiency boost ! And this was "discovered" in 2016, 7 years after Satoshi designed his thing. No way he could have foreseen at what point, by whom, it would have been discovered, and whether or not a patent would have been put onto it.

Quote

So therefor he created a design that he knew the Chinese ASIC manufacturers would figure out how to make covert AsicBoost and that if it was patented outside of China, then this would be the poison pill against any changes to the protocol (as I have recently explained at @gmaxwell's Redditard discussion).

Mmm. Satoshi knew in 2009 that a core guy was going to invent a thing that interested Chinese manufacturers in 2016.

Quote

@dinofelis STFU on your nonsense about Satoshi wasn't genius. I've strongly refuted all of your nonsense technical claims. Stop your lying nonsense.

I haven't seen any rational argument. I have seen a lot of handwaving, a lot of empty arguments filled with rethoric but not much tangible arguments, and then, claims that previously such "rebuttals" were definitive on the question, where they didn't settle anything.

Like the argument that Shor's algorithm is already a known way to kill ECC, and then, when it turns out that this goes against your defence of Satoshi-genius, namely that the problem was not that Satoshi was brilliant enough to "protect" ECC while it was going to get attacked by quantum computers, rather that a quantum-computer broken ECC was of no use to be protected by a hash function, it would kill the possibility of using a transaction, suddenly you argued that quantum computers would only be useful to attack "long term" but not "short term", as if that made any sense: a totally broken crypto (as per Shor's algorithm) is totally broken, as well in the short term as in the long term.

After pointing out the futility of this rebuttal, you maintain nevertheless that you "refuted this" and that I refused to comprehend your argument.

You're a very smart guy, but you're totally locked up in your need that Satoshi was an evil genius, because you need to be the super hero / James Bond that needs to save the world from the Spectrum of Satoshi. As such, you fall into the trap of many people suffering from such type of delusion, namely taking everything, and its opposite, as a proof of their necessary hypothesis, and lose all sense of critical thinking. This is also what happens to people locked up in religious or other sectarian ideologies. This is a pity it happens to you. Your critical thinking is totally blurred by your need of having a sufficiently evil and genial adversary.