Also Satoshi put double-hashing every where except on the PoW, thus enabling AsciiBoost intentionally.
I do not think double Sha-256 would stop ASICBoost from manifesting. ASICBoost is an exploit on the PoW inputs directly, not the hashing algo.
For some reason I need to
re-explain that double-hashing can mean employing two different hash functions as Satoshi did for example for public addresses. I had already explained this to @dinofelis in the context of an
in depth analysis of Satoshis design of Bitcoin and also a blog about the future global reserve currency.
AsicBoost is an exploit on the internal stages of the SHA-256 hash function. Some of the computational work does not need to be repeated for successive hashing. Employing two different hash function algorithms chained, would eliminate AsicBoost. Satoshi knew this obviously (because his attention to detail in every other area about critical importance of hashing exemplifies that he would) and he chose to enable AsicBoost which enables centralization of Bitcoin mining.
(Note I will be editing this post to add rebuttals to your other comments. Obviously youre regurgitating Trilemas incomplete understanding or those who incorrectly idolize John Nashs theory of Ideal Money)
Satoshi placed the 1MB cap to prevent the full centralization and the ultimate collapse of the system, and this contradicts that his original intention was centralization. When he set the limit, he acknowledged that his original design could not properly function because technology that exploits will always outpace technology that advances. So, the system was placed into a cooldown state until it could be naturally rectified by time.
The 1MB cap does nothing to solve the centralization problem. Here is
a portion of the blog post I am in the process of writing which refutes you.
<<--- IMPORTANTEverything was planned out, and though there have been some hiccups along the way, it will ultimately help bring about Nash's Ideal Money as a side effect of its existence and success, but miner centralization and modern day Israel has no direct
importance/significance with the actual goal.
Afaics, youve been hoodwinked
by the Zionists. If you really want to understand, then
you must go watch the videos.
Edit: the Steemit link with the videos appears to be currently offline. Here is an alternative
link to the videos.
To start with, it is not an exploit (i.e., in the crypto sense) but rather a simple algorithmic property of SHA256.
Irrelevant. Satoshi was not limiting himself to the reliance on the
standard cryptographic requirements for a cryptographic hash function. He was clearly analysing the complex ways that hash functions could fail in different scenarios.
Second, there is no way to know who would have patented it first. Third, the patents are not valid in all jurisdictions, and indeed
Irrelevant.
The centralization is due to the fact that not everyone can use it at the same cost due to patents. It is quite clear that
TPTB could use it without paying patent royalties. The stealth quality interacts with the patent aspect in that there's no way to know who is using it now or has been using it in the past. Thus those who have access at the highest levels can get it patent-free, but everyone else cant. Analogous to we pay taxes, but the elite dont.
There are only two 14nm ASIC fabs in the world. You can safely assume TPTB and banksters control them (via proxy).
I mean, all industries are rife with patented technologies, but that does not ensure monopolies in all of society. I suppose its possible, but I am unconvinced.
In most industries there is not a surreptitious way that
avoiding a patent can benefit an elite power in such a way that it provides the sufficient advantage to winner-take-all the spoils.
Your points do not refute my logic. Satoshi was very much thinking in exquisite detail about the way the internal stages of hash functions interact as evident by the combination of RIPE and SHA. If you had followed the links to all the past discussion with @dinofelis, that more detailed analysis is there.
Incidentally, I did acknowledge that it renders additional cash to the patent holder.
That is not what I pointed out in my rebuttal. Please read again.
I just see that advantage as lost in the noise when compared to differential power rates or other operational efficiencies.
For the powerful who have access to the best of everything, it is then a matter of few percent who amongst them winner-take-alls because of recycling the disproportionate profits into more fixed capital investment. Were analysing a power-struggle at the highest echelons such as a nation-state versus Zionists.