Everyone in the blockchain space knows that in Bitcoin mining, Bitmain, a Chinese ASIC manufacturer, stands as a dominant player. However, recent allegations from industry insiders, such as Mechanic (aka @GrassFedBitcoin), suggest that Bitmain has engaged in practices that raise ethical and competitive concerns. These allegations revolve around covert ASICBOOST, SEGWIT opposition, Antbleed, and more recent firmware issues affecting mining efficiency. This article delves into these claims to shed light on the potential impact on the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Covert ASICBOOST and the Early Advantage
ASICBOOST is a patented technology that allows miners to reduce the computational effort required for mining, thus increasing their efficiency. Mechanic alleges that Bitmain exploited a covert version of this technology by grinding Merkle roots instead of nonces, a method not widely known to other miners. This clandestine advantage purportedly contributed to the downfall of competitors like KNC, which cited an unidentified “Chinese secret advantage” before going out of business.
The revelation of ASICBOOST came to the fore when Bitcoin Core developer Greg Maxwell reverse-engineered Bitmain’s ASICs and demonstrated their covert use of this technology. Bitmain’s alleged advantage sparked outrage, particularly as it coincided with their opposition to the activation of SEGWIT (Segregated Witness), a protocol upgrade essential for enabling the Lightning Network and fixing transaction malleability issues.
SEGWIT Blockade and Bitmain’s Influence
Mechanic claims Bitmain leveraged its significant influence to block the activation of SEGWIT, fearing it would nullify their covert use of ASICBOOST. This opposition manifested in the guise of advocating for alternative scaling solutions or a hard fork of SEGWIT, which would have allowed them to continue their practices. Despite Bitmain’s public stance, the community remained skeptical, particularly after Maxwell’s exposure of their ASICBOOST usage.
SEGWIT’s eventual activation was a critical moment in the “fork wars,” highlighting the underlying motivations of Bitmain’s arguments against it. The upgrade was combined with a block size increase as a compromise, but the incident underscored the contentious relationship between miners and developers over Bitcoin’s future.
Antbleed: The Hidden Backdoor
Another contentious issue was the discovery of “Antbleed,” an intentional backdoor in Bitmain’s Antminer firmware that allowed remote shutdown of the devices. Ostensibly designed to disable stolen units, the feature sparked security and trust concerns once it was publicly revealed. Bitmain quickly patched the backdoor following the backlash, but the incident added to the narrative of their willingness to manipulate their hardware to maintain control.
Firmware Manipulations and Empty Blocks
The latest controversy, as highlighted by Mechanic, involves firmware issues in Antminers that purportedly cause them to continue working on outdated templates for up to 60 seconds after new ones are issued. This inefficiency results in the frequent discovery of empty blocks, misleadingly attributed to pool mismanagement rather than hardware flaws. The timing of Bitmain’s firmware fix, released soon after these issues were publicized, suggests to Mechanic that Bitmain intentionally maintained this inefficiency to benefit their own mining operations while selling compromised units to others.
The implication is that Bitmain’s own miners were not affected by these firmware issues, allowing them to mine more efficiently than their competitors. This practice, if true, not only undermines fair competition but also manipulates the perceived performance of different mining pools, contributing to market consolidation under Bitmain’s influence.
The Centralization of Mining Power
Mechanic points to evidence suggesting that Bitmain’s control extends beyond their publicly known mining pools. Smaller pools, which ostensibly appear independent, may be fronts for Bitmain, as indicated by shared block construction practices, custodianship of newly mined coins, and financial ties through lending programs. This centralization raises alarms about the resilience and decentralization of the Bitcoin network.
Mechanic’s allegations that Bitmain likely accounts for over 50% of block templates and manufactures more than 90% of mining hardware amplify concerns about the concentration of power within the Bitcoin mining sector. This centralization poses risks to the network’s security and its foundational principle of decentralization.
Community Reaction
Luke Dashjr, a prominent Bitcoin Core developer, highlighted the complexity of building efficient ASICs and the centralizing force of technologies like ASICBOOST. He pointed out that ASICBOOST essentially transformed SHA2 into an “ASIC-resistant” Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm, inherently centralizing mining power by making it more difficult for new manufacturers to compete.
“The net effect is that building an efficient ASIC is complex. ASICBOOST essentially made SHA2 into an ‘ASIC-resistant’ PoW algorithm. And that in itself is a strongly centralizing force.”
Luke Dashjr
Dashjr also emphasized the legal and ethical issues surrounding Bitmain’s violation of the GPL license for open-source mining software. He noted that Bitmain’s consistent hiding of the code prevented the community from identifying and fixing flaws, which he argues were likely intentional to maintain Bitmain’s competitive edge.
“Bitmain has consistently violated this license for years, hiding the code for no apparent reason. Obviously, these intentional flaws explain why—not only would someone have caught this sooner, but anyone else could have fixed it on their own if Bitmain released the code as required.”
Luke Dashjr
Mechanic’s Insights
Mechanic, another influential figure in the Bitcoin community, corroborated Dashjr’s points about ASICBOOST and the centralization of mining power. He acknowledged that while he often delves into various tangents, the overarching issue remains the centralizing effect of ASICBOOST, even when its use is transparent.
“Yep. I papered over this because I keep going off on tangents, but it’s true. A world with ASICBOOST is a world with fewer manufacturers even if it’s wide out in the open.”
Mechanic
Mechanic also provided technical details about the new firmware updates for Antminers, indicating that only specific models like the K Pros had received the optimized firmware. This specificity further fueled discussions about Bitmain’s strategic firmware rollouts and their impact on mining efficiency and decentralization.
The broader community has expressed significant concerns over the potential centralization of Bitcoin mining power due to Bitmain’s practices. Users like @tatumturnup questioned the availability and transparency of firmware updates, highlighting the reliance on Bitmain’s discretion for critical updates.
Additionally, Dashjr speculated whether the defects in Antminer firmware, which limited generated payouts, were intentional, further suggesting a pattern of behavior designed to consolidate Bitmain’s dominance in the mining sector.
The Need for Vigilance
The allegations against Bitmain highlight the intricate and often opaque dynamics of the Bitcoin mining industry. From covert ASICBOOST to firmware manipulations, these practices reflect broader concerns about transparency, fairness, and centralization within the ecosystem. As Bitcoin continues to evolve, ensuring a balanced and equitable playing field for all participants is crucial to maintaining the network’s integrity.
Author Profile
- Lucy Walker covers finance, health and beauty since 2014. She has been writing for various online publications.
Latest entries
- April 25, 2025Global EconomicsWhistleblowers Unmask Schwab’s Toxic WEF Secrets
- April 9, 2025Global EconomicsTariff Tensions Drive Market Volatility
- March 18, 2025Global EconomicsRed in Name Only: Labour’s War on the UK Working Class
- March 7, 2025SatoshiCraig Wright Banned from UK Courts with Civil Restraint Order