From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W1aDu-0003FA-NO for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:25:58 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.149.80 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.149.80; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail149080.authsmtp.com; Received: from outmail149080.authsmtp.com ([62.13.149.80]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1W1aDs-0000mz-Sd for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:25:58 +0000 Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237]) by punt17.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s0ABPo0t078749; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:25:50 GMT Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s0ABPgXW064023 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:25:45 GMT Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:25:42 -0500 From: Peter Todd To: Jorge =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tim=F3n?= Message-ID: <20140110112542.GA19426@savin> References: <20131230232225.GA10594@tilt> <201312310114.05600.luke@dashjr.org> <20140101045342.GA7103@tilt> <20140103210139.GB30273@savin> <20140106154456.GA18449@savin> <20140110111128.GC25749@savin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140110111128.GC25749@savin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: f2bfbea3-79e9-11e3-94fa-002590a135d3 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdwIUElQaAgsB AmIbWlVeUlh7XWY7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq WVdMSlVNFUsrAW1z Zkl2NRl0cwVEezBx ZURkVz4NXhYsJxMs QVNTHDgPeGZhPWMC WUQOJh5UcAFPdx8U a1N6AHBDAzANdhES HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA43HjN0 RhYZED4yB0wZVm00 IVQjJ0QTEQMUM0Mz N1RJ X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587 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: 1W1aDs-0000mz-Sd Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The insecurity of merge-mining 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, 10 Jan 2014 11:25:58 -0000 --bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 06:11:28AM -0500, Peter Todd wrote: > > Fair enough. > > Do you see any case where an independently pow validated altcoin is > > more secure than a merged mined one? >=20 > Situations where decentralized consensus systems are competing for > market share in some domain certainely apply. For instance if I were to > create a competitor to Namecoin, perhaps because I thought the existing > allocation of names was unfair, and/or I had technical improvements like > SPV, it's easy to imagine Namecoin miners deciding to attack my > competitor to preserve the value of their namecoins and domain names > registered in Namecoin. Come to think of it, we've got that exact situation right now: the new Twister P2P Microblogging thing has a blockchain for registering usernames that could have been easily done with Namecoin, thus in theory Namecoin owners have an incentive to make sure the Twister blockchain gets killed at birth. Pretty easy to do right now too as the hashing power behind Twister is miniscule and probably will stay that way - the only incentive to mining is that you get the right to make a "promoted post" - called a spam message in the codebase - that in theory Twister clients are supposed to show to their users. Of course, there's absolutely no way to guarantee that clients actually do that. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000028a5c9edabc9697fe96405f667be1d6d558d1db21d49b8857 --bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQGrBAEBCACVBQJSz9i1XhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDI4YTVjOWVkYWJjOTY5N2ZlOTY0MDVmNjY3YmUxZDZkNTU4 ZDFkYjIxZDQ5Yjg4NTcvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkfvClAf9HoupZ++RYV9OA4XRNc73NxUs UwwXOzWhakQTHD/w8JeKOeAEl5GXqSsYM9w26v14iCsXL3buOanFJ5rC9ooKtS/m 8z4eYaLcecqWlXfd6UkF2poHvQece51bq/VvTyHEq/COv9zvizt62tzYgBEClJXk oBKgGBRmMUhRG8cSRBs3uOePH4jj/3yBlmPIGf9FY4GJOZdGqbVUDVFgeEbyzSQp tMnDpWCNUB61KJrexJa4THsUW+oexZo8AneP3/U6gONvAquJcOxyaIv+KfEWb9nx r6WLw7HzEyY3klR5vr4W8TkDp3r08XLaLO8n3Uyk5+jeLiHcT61JjaslR5E3Yw== =RSMh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn--