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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VxuJy-0007uY-Jf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:05:02 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of astutium.com designates 80.76.216.240 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.76.216.240; envelope-from=rob.golding@astutium.com; helo=web.astutium.com; Received: from [80.76.216.240] (helo=web.astutium.com) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1VxuJx-0004BB-0u for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:05:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42691 helo=astutium.com) by web.astutium.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1VxtuE-0007aX-Uk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 31 Dec 2013 07:38:27 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 07:38:26 +0000 From: rob.golding@astutium.com To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: References: <20131230232225.GA10594@tilt> <201312310114.05600.luke@dashjr.org> Message-ID: <9aaa913f73f45db41d94d93d02eed3fa@astutium.com> X-Sender: rob.golding@astutium.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - web.astutium.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.sourceforge.net X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - astutium.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: web.astutium.com: authenticated_id: rob.golding@astutium.com 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 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Headers-End: 1VxuJx-0004BB-0u Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 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: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:05:02 -0000 > But there's so much 'dry powder' out there (GPUs), I wonder if *not* > supporting merge-mining is any better? At least the attacker has to do > some unique PoW, so you hope it's costing them something. With lots of people having access to 100TH+ there's not really much 'cost' to doing a 51% attack on an alt-coin beyond a short-term diversion away from 'profitable' mining. At least by supporting merged mining, more miners are likely to 'support' multiple coin types, thus making a 51% attack from an individual/group less straightforward. >> The rational decision for a non-scam altcoin, is to take advantage of >> merged mining to get as much security as possible. Exactly. Rob