From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UnaxG-0001IY-2N for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:50:42 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.83.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.83.51; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com; helo=mail-ee0-f51.google.com; Received: from mail-ee0-f51.google.com ([74.125.83.51]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UnaxF-0006LJ-2M for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:50:42 +0000 Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id e52so586852eek.38 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:50:34 -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:in-reply-to:user-agent:x-hashcash :x-hashcash; bh=GnnQoXe6X0BjzQCbGwQ+CgAo5L9kc99jTsMnMip3xmE=; b=PJNF/YgjowOoCD1ma7lP0+7Y4r8GybVk7HsW8ItQUukwgOwe0XyfrifZwUJ5IsbGTg u/v35xTBjJjh8AREgwBWuAzZYjqSKEqfO3JpcriYIQWRhlOHa6FthuXDBH7VAQdgjinE bdva5AzE10Pdu2Wf2PCkICy2sQBoxqjAtupMZ7XDFGprXxwLreKScvzItvcpuLzJKd8v 8grLaLnDw5xEvlv+jh3LmGH5eSc56BawIvxqoIOSRjwRtFC/RtsH7hUTjE3ILXHsMcGn F2UVOxBQFi8fTkYtovlCy+8p8YRq3Bv9gcgsmDRHTjX7cTeTHiQKzyOpCjH2xD4VL/Zf xHVA== X-Received: by 10.14.148.136 with SMTP id v8mr5030280eej.128.1371243034708; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netbook (c83-90.i07-21.onvol.net. [92.251.83.90]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p43sm5889416eem.11.2013.06.14.13.50.33 for (version=TLSv1.1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D32042E046F; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:50:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000); Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:50:31 +0200 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:50:31 +0200 From: Adam Back To: Peter Todd Message-ID: <20130614205031.GB10215@netbook.cypherspace.org> References: <20130519132359.GA12366@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20130613133932.GA13028@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20130614192058.GA11509@petertodd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130614192058.GA11509@petertodd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Hashcash: 1:20:130614:pete@petertodd.org::NxcQ18DlteATIaBW:0000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000002X9 X-Hashcash: 1:20:130614:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::XoEsm72vbPYq/ 0Pv:000000000000000000000ifm 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: 1UnaxF-0006LJ-2M Cc: Bitcoin-Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] is there a way to do bitcoin-staging? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:50:42 -0000 Agreed. What I mean is a coinbase for parity-priced alt-coin would be intentionally considered (and required by the alt-coin to be considered) an invalid bitcoin address, and vice versa. The difference is for this purpose it is both valid alt-coin coinbase (as well as unspendable bitcoin coinbase). Adam On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 03:20:58PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote: >On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 03:39:32PM +0200, Adam Back wrote: >> I had one thought towards this which is a different kind of merged mining. >> >> I think a "fair" merged mining aiming for price parity would be done by the >> miner having to choose the altcoin or btc at mine time, and altcoin chain >> considering btc mine unspendable and bitcoin considering ac unspendable. > >One way to look at what you are describing is to say you want to prove >your sacrifice of potential BTC earnings. That goes back to the PoW >hashcash stuff I mentioned earlier, and is accomplished by simply mining >shares with an unspendable coinbase to prove you did work that could >have resulted in Bitcoins, but didn't.