From: Isidor Zeuner <cryptocurrencies@quidecco.de>
To: patrick <patrick@intersango.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
References: <54880492.9060300@intersango.com> <54876653.4020403@certimix.com>
	<548769FA.5040406@bluematt.me>
	<CA+s+GJAe9MeO+Sr0+2BRwu3q-Be5JQt_s_xdnBBEcquXqOyxcA@mail.gmail.com>
	<417518B4-1E4D-4467-BC87-95C9EAF0C599@bitsofproof.com>
In-Reply-To: <54880492.9060300@intersango.com>
Message-Id: <20141215145506.54A06E23568@quidecco.de>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:55:06 +0100 (CET)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Merged mining a side chain with proof of
 burn on parent chain
Precedence: list

> The goal is to have an opportunity cost to breaking the rules.
>
> Proof of Burn is a real cost for following the rules.
>

For every participant who could try to decide about the adequateness
of the cost, no direct effect comes from the difference between Proof
of Burn, and approaches which keep the Bitcoins inside the set of
outputs that can still participate. So, any notion which
differentiates with respect to this must make some assumption about
what defines the interest of the Bitcoin nodes as a community.

Best regards,

Isidor