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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1UypOe-0004Fk-4y
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:29:24 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.102 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.102; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148102.authsmtp.net;
Received: from outmail148102.authsmtp.net ([62.13.148.102])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1UypOc-0003y5-93 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:29:24 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt7.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id
r6FKTEPt092154; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:29:14 +0100 (BST)
Received: from petertodd.org (petertodd.org [174.129.28.249])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r6FKT9mE066933
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:29:12 +0100 (BST)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:29:09 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Jorge =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@monetize.io>
Message-ID: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAC1+kJO+dWdr=7uHx4Qokpsir6+B-VCaweOe-_YG0OHvYwCA=w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 35f3152f-ed8d-11e2-b5c5-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdwcUEkAYAgsB AmUbWVVeUlR7WGE7 ag1VcwRfa1RMVxto
VEFWR1pVCwQmQxp3 fXoXD2xycQNPe30+ ZEFhV3YVX0Esdkd4
QBhJQDkOMXphaTUd TRJdJAZJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL
NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDGj82 VR0YGj4oHEtNXSg3
IhU9J1JYVFkRO1l6 OFEmRE5QOn1aGABE GEpKASkcIF8FVmIi
CR8fVkkfFnVCQDtc ShApPh9FGHlVQGJd BU1ETR5n
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 174.129.28.249/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1UypOc-0003y5-93
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 20:29:24 -0000
--UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000582cc323897a582e9368a5c3dfbcdcf73e78b261703e1bd1ba
--UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlHkW5UACgkQpEFN739thoxMoQCfdwzkYFayzN2hvV1VB4wjOWlV
vlUAnREZCNxuBDhBKuJSAS0UzqKq3Z/4
=Elx3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2--
|
