Reading up on this, I'm struck by a couple things:
1. Bitcoin core is threatening to make changes to defeat this, and any other, patents that would effectively force miners to pay the patentee in order to mine profitably.
2. Patents drive innovation, providing a means for inventors to profit from their work.
3. The ASICBoost inventors point out that if Bitcoin Core suppresses their patent, the impact will be this: Future innovators with similar technology will be motivated to go underground, developing secret partnerships with (select) miners. That way they still get paid something for their work, but only a fraction of the mining community gains the benefit.
Point #3 bears careful consideration. Let's say the ASICBoost team had realized what Core's response would be, and just secretly sold their technology to the highest bidder after quiet negotiations. That bidder would hold a major advantage, strong enough to grind down competition over time.
In the long run, this could lead to some serious centralization of the mining industry, and none of us want that.
The point being, Core acting to suppress patents does not make the inventors quit or their inventions magically disappear. It winds up endangering the decentralization of the bitcoin mining network.
I'm not a huge fan of the idea that the ASICBoost team, and similar groups, could reap huge profits off the miners. As someone noted above, the rational ASICBoost price would be just a little less than the added profit it provides compared to an equal miner that does not use ASICBoost. In other words, just under 20% of mining revenue. So ASICBoost could potentially suck up almost 20% of mining revenue. The Miners would have to pay electricity, hardware investment, personnel, rent and so on from the remaining 80%. That's a tough hit for them.
But if the alternative is them going out of business... I guess this brings forth Core's threat to defeat not just ASICBoost, but to find a way to defeat any similar enhancement. Keep in mind that Core would not only need to defeat public patents, but also any private invention that someone secretly cooks up.
If they could do that with some confidence, I think that might be the way to go. But if they can't be confident that they are forcing a level playing field on all miners, then I think they'd better lay off and let the patent holders take their profit. Because otherwise I think the threat of centralization due to some miners having a fixed advantage is just too great a risk.
Just my 2 satoshis...
Great points. This whole issue is pretty complicated IMHO. There are all kinds of possible consequences associated with changing the protocol. I think it would be good to see some kind of research paper/memo from proponents - ideally some of the core devs - researching the prospective change using a cost-benefit analysis of some kind. Specifically, What are the most probable risks associated with doing nothing (is there any empirical evidence of these types of risks materializing in other fields, what was the outcome?), how have analogous issues in other industries been handled, what are the most probable risks of forking the protocol on the basis of this or similar threats, what are the known-unknowns here (and what are some analogous unintended consequences associated with similar changes and non-changes in other fields, how well do these analogies fit here), etc.? Same type of paper from opponents would also be useful.
TL;DR - A change in protocol may well be warranted. However, making the change without a concerted and transparent attempt at analyzing the problem alongside the users risks a lot of backlash and an irreparable loss of faith in the Bitcoin system. Proponents implementing the change cannot and should not let themselves appear to be above public dialogue (i.e., by ignoring genuine concerns of opponents or concerned users) or like they're making things up as they go along. Paradoxically, making the right change may be wrong if collapses the system.
