public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Vessenes <peter@coinlab.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
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
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:54:23 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMGNxUv91eHNtSk61-wL=jnXjUCJBAAMdS2YCbkefFj3o4Jc9A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130715202909.GA9286@petertodd.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3431 bytes --]

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 Timón 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
>



-- 

------------------------------

[image: CoinLab Logo]PETER VESSENES
CEO

*peter@coinlab.com * /  206.486.6856  / SKYPE: vessenes
900 Winslow Way East / SUITE 100  /  Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5181 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2013-07-16  4:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-07-05 14:01 [Bitcoin-development] libzerocoin released, what about a zerocoin-only alt-coin with either-or mining Adam Back
2013-07-12 13:18 ` Peter Todd
2013-07-13  9:51   ` Jorge Timón
2013-07-13  9:53     ` Jorge Timón
2013-07-13 18:32       ` Peter Vessenes
2013-07-15  9:51         ` Peter Todd
2013-07-15 13:05           ` Jorge Timón
2013-07-15 20:29             ` Peter Todd
2013-07-16  3:54               ` Peter Vessenes [this message]
2013-07-13 18:42     ` Adam Back
2013-07-14 11:18       ` Jorge Timón
2013-07-14 19:22         ` John Dillon
2013-07-14 19:33           ` Luke-Jr
2013-07-14 19:42             ` Pieter Wuille
2013-07-14 19:52               ` John Dillon
2013-07-14 20:16               ` Luke-Jr
2013-07-15  0:12                 ` Peter Todd
2013-07-15  1:51                   ` Luke-Jr
2013-07-15  1:59                     ` Peter Todd
2013-07-14 19:48             ` John Dillon
2013-07-15  0:14           ` Adam Back
2013-07-15  0:29           ` Peter Todd

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAMGNxUv91eHNtSk61-wL=jnXjUCJBAAMdS2YCbkefFj3o4Jc9A@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=peter@coinlab.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=pete@petertodd.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox