Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <adam.back@gmail.com>) id 1UyWRG-0005vU-Bh
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:14:50 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.83.49 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.83.49; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ee0-f49.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ee0-f49.google.com ([74.125.83.49])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1UyWRF-0006PU-6d
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:14:50 +0000
Received: by mail-ee0-f49.google.com with SMTP id b57so7157718eek.8
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=google.com; s=20120113;
	h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
	:content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding
	:in-reply-to:user-agent:x-hashcash:x-hashcash:x-hashcash:x-hashcash;
	bh=Fy4/lWhQwGroNcgMlFm4goAd/yidW4qwi70NwjXHc/A=;
	b=ko8DtBWpXSMY3NQBZMtsdQ24+jyHZWvEIgkDqIioyPlvxaiPmxDelL6XV5PhWYC2OE
	2nhzf4EKMY6WPxkmfH8RUMd91mTL0B1iDs5AgtznD0Rzp+I02GUzkwYgJYjWe59ddPdS
	FQtBihQR/4o+GEOfLMRrYpQeg3d3SRkMYCa7NQvri3aiHIVXk2zD1Cf4UqEQoLHilPBS
	OGlAqlODFQuOM5oJgPA/Y98dzkFsgCeB391T6ggBo3h0lAjUIlvSLfaOpsVxekO4gfJL
	zwHFyugvsmbG4U4P9tSZdCH008pFswkdK+TtNnLGSU7cPbvnQ3biKXIEJqUH2z12nmBT
	wbuA==
X-Received: by 10.15.83.69 with SMTP id b45mr55746592eez.150.1373847282832;
	Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netbook (c83-90.i07-21.onvol.net. [92.251.83.90])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i2sm98340598eeu.4.2013.07.14.17.14.41
	for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1.1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 7EAE92E0649; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 02:14:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000);
	Mon, 15 Jul 2013 02:14:38 +0200
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 02:14:37 +0200
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <20130715001437.GA21991@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <20130705140140.GA23949@netbook.cypherspace.org>
	<20130712131815.GA18716@petertodd.org>
	<CAC1+kJOerE75+rtMHiy27aDLwWC9juAYva4u_iMVihnePTOYig@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130713184227.GA5902@netbook.cypherspace.org>
	<CAC1+kJMyvKnUKm8xTjzUK_5iq_VZM=iX17aCCd9vqe7jsYUJfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPaL=UVmr1zng6QtngkY-Y+fP+E67NST7MYRpkSHfjtwZ7PFNw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAPaL=UVmr1zng6QtngkY-Y+fP+E67NST7MYRpkSHfjtwZ7PFNw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Hashcash: 1:20:130715:john.dillon892@googlemail.com::il4BOinP2uXByUUI:00000000
	0000000000000000000000002Dhd
X-Hashcash: 1:20:130715:jtimon@monetize.io::fldh9IPE/5hhUI6N:0000000000000000000
	000000000000000000000000327Z
X-Hashcash: 1:20:130715:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::CAs/fs5a36+8r
	7am:000000000000000000002wch
X-Hashcash: 1:20:130715:adam@cypherspace.org::CvPPIED+io+1rXiH:00000000000000000
	0000000000000000000000000+Gd
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(adam.back[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1UyWRF-0006PU-6d
Cc: Bitcoin-Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] libzerocoin released,
 what about a zerocoin-only alt-coin with either-or mining
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:14:50 -0000

I think bi-directional sacrifice is probably not needed to assure a close to
1:1 bi-directional peg.

(Bi-directional sacrifice meaning also to convert a zerocoin to a bitcoin
you sacrifice a zerocoin and bitcoin would be modified to accept a zerocoin
sacrifice as a way to replace a previously sacrificed bitcoin).

I say that because if users who want zerocoins can obtain them at 1:1
exchange via sacrifice (a mathematical peg), it is of no additional cost to
them to instead buy them from someone who previously obtained them via
sacrifice for bitcoin (rather than sacrificing a new bitcoin).  So
presumably for goodwill, or nominal fee (a small discount), people would buy
rather than sacrifice where there is availability.

Adam

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 07:22:10PM +0000, John Dillon wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA256
>
>On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@monetize.io> wrote:
>> All the arguments in favor of this pegging use zerocoin's point of
>> view. Sure it would be much better for it, but are additional costs to
>> the bitcoin network and you cannot do it with every chain.
>
>Seems that Peter is describing a system that requires no changes at all to the
>Bitcoin codebase and thus there are no costs whatsoever.
>
>Peter: I'm a bit confused by this concept of "bi-directional sacrifice" though,
>I assume there exists only a sacrifice in one direction right? Wouldn't selling
>a zerocoin be just a matter of giving zerocoin a rule so that the zerocoin tx
>moving it to the new owner only happens if a specific form of bitcoin tx
>happens too?
>
>> Merged mining is not mining the coin for free. The total reward (ie
>> btc + frc + nmc + dvc) should tend to equal the mining costs. But the
>> value comes from demand, not costs. So if people demand it more it
>> price will rise no matter how is mined. And if the price rises it will
>> make sense to spend more on mining.
>> "Bitcoins are worth because it costs to mine them" is a Marxian labor
>> thory of value argument.
>> It's the other way arround as Menger taught us.
>
>Merge mining is very much mining a coin for free. Ask not what the total reward
>is, ask that the marginal cost of merge mining an additional coin is. The issue
>is that unless there is a cost to mining a *invalid* block the merge mined coin
>has little protection from miners who mine invalid blocks, either maliciously
>or through negligence. If the coin isn't worth much, either because it's market
>value is low or the worth is negative to the malicious miner, your theories of
>value have nothing to do with the issue.
>
>Gregory Maxwell has written about this issue before on the #bitcoin-dev IRC
>channel and on bitcointalk as well if memory serves. I advise you to look up
>his description of the problem, almost everything he writes on the topic of
>crypto-coin theory is spot-on correct.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJR4vpGAAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPwu0IAMrzkVfI0CQuNJRCR+jwhNts
>juEerApSSpBes6CjLBJJYZWDdMReSl6izqNDancnJygYc+Q5/IkwBispyZyeIVqY
>HbV+jyAFQeVaJBZp8N+ZUDfN9/35SkPb4Y30dkq6V76hBfl+59bWq4qG0dhiO915
>SBWAUPLspb5GOyu494GJUr4SPzgs9mAKfNGeQR2anOLj8Qam8Khfa4Zm5T5dX8WQ
>vBunUCLykPvWBC3nuTDBU5gQu4TGW9ivGB4p6yLr7MyaPQYZEnYGqgU/yIfAhnBj
>MfIfs6njPwhGMwteNmwLoS0VLRBFjWZDflquJ0NK6mNLR3c9yjOFMFPTTZFVinQ=
>=b40P
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----