1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
|
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 <peter@coinlab.com>) id 1Uywmc-0005n6-6E
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 16 Jul 2013 04:22:38 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of coinlab.com
designates 209.85.216.172 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.172; envelope-from=peter@coinlab.com;
helo=mail-qc0-f172.google.com;
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com ([209.85.216.172])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Uywma-00015Q-Bl
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 16 Jul 2013 04:22:38 +0000
Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id j10so129204qcx.17
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
bh=6woqdcp1/74XzHfDWiK24u8e8HywJhSECqykRatbAL4=;
b=GJZYrofDJ2AsZrbhK+mrk72vyfbRDk+BDOHDz3ZtgsyQjROS6JRAqnbZI4yORZZXYn
nyFkEhaXbvTclwZUn+uRgf5Gp6C0mv3U03qPLrWXhYzUl2r8K8GInCpWlrVKZ9guCd7p
rIdCVhO6hhpkKQy7wU5nK0SGY7rTJue5MhNysHY4tErjCiHx9u0cJIhY53+0RBBxviZO
tex8D4npD1cn+2vWseYyQudDYzRP+A1CySRv76WhkbEXLkJpNFWrtLqHa9uCztvOFBFD
STLh1+tG1AXCcsS8EuamLN5RHFqqm7Gaxhca9sotZAJsYXL/2B4xBSsC2AsisflPPpHi
7Zow==
X-Received: by 10.49.106.40 with SMTP id gr8mr53446636qeb.84.1373946883404;
Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.39.137 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130715202909.GA9286@petertodd.org>
References: <20130705140140.GA23949@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<20130712131815.GA18716@petertodd.org>
<CAC1+kJOerE75+rtMHiy27aDLwWC9juAYva4u_iMVihnePTOYig@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC1+kJN9G_OcX8+Vr6gLgM+KRNDzYtijjWxwmcA=yrKhU_fWkQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMGNxUtnYy0qtdRw3Pz2xV9xztEg317MRs0_mNMEWGE5oAxnig@mail.gmail.com>
<20130715095107.GA8828@savin>
<CAC1+kJO+dWdr=7uHx4Qokpsir6+B-VCaweOe-_YG0OHvYwCA=w@mail.gmail.com>
<20130715202909.GA9286@petertodd.org>
From: Peter Vessenes <peter@coinlab.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:54:23 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMGNxUv91eHNtSk61-wL=jnXjUCJBAAMdS2YCbkefFj3o4Jc9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b675db0ecf92d04e198ef18
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmX7SZG9KrespGI5CbsE8Q16y5pxuNCATiZAwDgs/m45b/2IwbjF96bkN24V3tpH9308qLR
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1Uywma-00015Q-Bl
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: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 04:22:38 -0000
--047d7b675db0ecf92d04e198ef18
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm at the Aspen Institute right now talking about Bitcoin and I mentioned
the perils of starting an alt-chain based on proof of work that pool
operators might attack; funny synchronicity!
Peter
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:05:52PM +0200, Jorge Tim=F3n wrote:
> > One way sacrifice (btc to zerocoin) is a non-issue since there's no
> > modification required for bitcoin and you can't do anything to prevent
> > it anyway.
> > The controversial thing is sacrificing something outside bitcoin's
> > chain and new btc appearing.
>
> Which is why I'm not proposing that.
>
> > On merged mining. It is true that "merged attacking" the other chain
> > is free, but it is still more profitable to just follow the rules and
> > mine the other coin!!
> > If someone considers that something he can sell in a market for btc is
> > "negative value"...well, he's just dammed stupid. Proof of work is
> > designed for rational actors, if you stop assuming miners are more or
> > less rational everything falls apart. It is possible that the "extra
> > value" is too little for some miners to bother. But the extra costs of
> > validating something else are so little compared to chance-hashing
> > that miners not merged mining namecoin right now are just stupid
> > (irrational agents). You can merged mine and sell for btc right away.
>
> You are assuming value is the same for everyone - it's not.
>
> If I mine in a jurisdiction where zerocoin is banned, and the blocks I
> mine are public, the value of zerocoin blocks to me are at best zero.
> Equally it would be easy for the local authorities to ask that I merge
> mine zerocoin blocks to attack the chain - it doesn't cost me anything
> so what's the harm? I may even choose to do so to preserve the value of
> the coins I can mine legally - alt-coins are competition.
>
> Incedentally keep in mind it is likely that in the future pools will not
> allow miners to modify the work units they receive in any way as a means
> of combating block-withholding fraud; there may not be very many people
> willing or able to honestly merge-mine any given chain.
>
> Proof-of-sacrifice can be done in a way that is opaque to the master
> blockchain by creating txouts that look no different from any other
> txout. Hopefully not required, but it would be a good strategy against
> censorship of sacrifice-based chains.
>
> > On prime proof of work...for me it's interseting only because it's
> > moving towards SCIP-based mining but that should be the goal. Like
> > Mark said, "let's cure cancer" while mining. That would end all
> > "mining is wasteful" arguments about this great security system. This
> > would make Ripple's consensus mechanism less attractive. People
> > talking about new scrypts harder to ASIC-mine when that's the elephant
> > in the room...
> > Sorry, I'm going off-topic.
> > SCIP-based merged mining for the win.
>
> SCIP is for now a dream. Give it a few more years and see how the
> technology shakes out.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000582cc323897a582e9368a5c3dfbcdcf73e78b261703e1bd1ba
>
--=20
------------------------------
[image: CoinLab Logo]PETER VESSENES
CEO
*peter@coinlab.com * / 206.486.6856 / SKYPE: vessenes
900 Winslow Way East / SUITE 100 / Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
--047d7b675db0ecf92d04e198ef18
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I'm at the Aspen Institute right now talking about Bit=
coin and I mentioned the perils of starting an alt-chain based on proof of =
work that pool operators might attack; funny synchronicity!<div><br></div>
<div>Peter</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmai=
l_quote">On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr"><=
<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org<=
/a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03=
:05:52PM +0200, Jorge Tim=F3n wrote:<br>
> One way sacrifice (btc to zerocoin) is a non-issue since there's n=
o<br>
> modification required for bitcoin and you can't do anything to pre=
vent<br>
> it anyway.<br>
> The controversial thing is sacrificing something outside bitcoin's=
<br>
> chain and new btc appearing.<br>
<br>
</div>Which is why I'm not proposing that.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> On merged mining. It is true that "merged attacking" the oth=
er chain<br>
> is free, but it is still more profitable to just follow the rules and<=
br>
> mine the other coin!!<br>
> If someone considers that something he can sell in a market for btc is=
<br>
> "negative value"...well, he's just dammed stupid. Proof =
of work is<br>
> designed for rational actors, if you stop assuming miners are more or<=
br>
> less rational everything falls apart. It is possible that the "ex=
tra<br>
> value" is too little for some miners to bother. But the extra cos=
ts of<br>
> validating something else are so little compared to chance-hashing<br>
> that miners not merged mining namecoin right now are just stupid<br>
> (irrational agents). You can merged mine and sell for btc right away.<=
br>
<br>
</div>You are assuming value is the same for everyone - it's not.<br>
<br>
If I mine in a jurisdiction where zerocoin is banned, and the blocks I<br>
mine are public, the value of zerocoin blocks to me are at best zero.<br>
Equally it would be easy for the local authorities to ask that I merge<br>
mine zerocoin blocks to attack the chain - it doesn't cost me anything<=
br>
so what's the harm? I may even choose to do so to preserve the value of=
<br>
the coins I can mine legally - alt-coins are competition.<br>
<br>
Incedentally keep in mind it is likely that in the future pools will not<br=
>
allow miners to modify the work units they receive in any way as a means<br=
>
of combating block-withholding fraud; there may not be very many people<br>
willing or able to honestly merge-mine any given chain.<br>
<br>
Proof-of-sacrifice can be done in a way that is opaque to the master<br>
blockchain by creating txouts that look no different from any other<br>
txout. Hopefully not required, but it would be a good strategy against<br>
censorship of sacrifice-based chains.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> On prime proof of work...for me it's interseting only because it&#=
39;s<br>
> moving towards SCIP-based mining but that should be the goal. Like<br>
> Mark said, "let's cure cancer" while mining. That would =
end all<br>
> "mining is wasteful" arguments about this great security sys=
tem. This<br>
> would make Ripple's consensus mechanism less attractive. People<br=
>
> talking about new scrypts harder to ASIC-mine when that's the elep=
hant<br>
> in the room...<br>
> Sorry, I'm going off-topic.<br>
> SCIP-based merged mining for the win.<br>
<br>
</div>SCIP is for now a dream. Give it a few more years and see how the<br>
technology shakes out.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
'peter'[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pet=
ertodd.org</a><br>
00000000000000582cc323897a582e9368a5c3dfbcdcf73e78b261703e1bd1ba<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <b=
r><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><hr style=3D"font-family:Times;font-size:medium;bord=
er-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;border-top=
-style:solid;border-top-color:rgb(204,204,204);margin:10px 0px">
<p style=3D"font-size:medium;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:1=
em"><span style=3D"color:rgb(50,90,135);text-transform:uppercase"><img src=
=3D"http://coinlab.com/static/images/email_logo.jpg" align=3D"right" alt=3D=
"CoinLab Logo" width=3D"130">PETER=A0<span style=3D"font-weight:bold">VESSE=
NES=A0</span><br>
<span style=3D"color:rgb(96,58,23);font-size:0.8em">CEO</span></span></p><p=
style=3D"font-size:medium;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:1em=
"><span style=3D"color:rgb(96,58,23);font-size:0.9em"><strong><a href=3D"ma=
ilto:peter@coinlab.com" style=3D"text-decoration:none;color:rgb(96,58,23)" =
target=3D"_blank">peter@coinlab.com</a>=A0</strong>=A0/=A0=A0206.486.6856 =
=A0/=A0<span style=3D"font-size:0.7em;text-transform:uppercase">SKYPE:</spa=
n>=A0vessenes=A0</span><br>
<span style=3D"color:rgb(96,58,23);font-size:0.7em;text-transform:uppercase=
">900 Winslow Way East / SUITE 100 =A0/ =A0Bainbridge Island, WA 98110</spa=
n></p></div>
</div>
--047d7b675db0ecf92d04e198ef18--
|
