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 1UyRs9-0004ay-Ud for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 19:22:18 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of googlemail.com designates 209.85.215.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.173; envelope-from=john.dillon892@googlemail.com; helo=mail-ea0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-ea0-f173.google.com ([209.85.215.173]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UyRs9-0005SC-45 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 19:22:17 +0000 Received: by mail-ea0-f173.google.com with SMTP id g15so7383024eak.18 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:22:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.14.38.14 with SMTP id z14mr56251688eea.49.1373829730783; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.12.131 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:22:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20130705140140.GA23949@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20130712131815.GA18716@petertodd.org> <20130713184227.GA5902@netbook.cypherspace.org> Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 19:22:10 +0000 Message-ID: From: John Dillon To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) 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 (john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (john.dillon892[at]googlemail.com) -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1UyRs9-0005SC-45 Cc: Bitcoin-Dev 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 19:22:18 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Jorge Tim=F3n wrote: > All the arguments in favor of this pegging use zerocoin's point of > view. Sure it would be much better for it, but are additional costs to > the bitcoin network and you cannot do it with every chain. Seems that Peter is describing a system that requires no changes at all to = the Bitcoin codebase and thus there are no costs whatsoever. Peter: I'm a bit confused by this concept of "bi-directional sacrifice" tho= ugh, I assume there exists only a sacrifice in one direction right? Wouldn't sel= ling a zerocoin be just a matter of giving zerocoin a rule so that the zerocoin = tx moving it to the new owner only happens if a specific form of bitcoin tx happens too? > Merged mining is not mining the coin for free. The total reward (ie > btc + frc + nmc + dvc) should tend to equal the mining costs. But the > value comes from demand, not costs. So if people demand it more it > price will rise no matter how is mined. And if the price rises it will > make sense to spend more on mining. > "Bitcoins are worth because it costs to mine them" is a Marxian labor > thory of value argument. > It's the other way arround as Menger taught us. Merge mining is very much mining a coin for free. Ask not what the total re= ward is, ask that the marginal cost of merge mining an additional coin is. The i= ssue is that unless there is a cost to mining a *invalid* block the merge mined = coin has little protection from miners who mine invalid blocks, either malicious= ly or through negligence. If the coin isn't worth much, either because it's ma= rket value is low or the worth is negative to the malicious miner, your theories= of value have nothing to do with the issue. Gregory Maxwell has written about this issue before on the #bitcoin-dev IRC channel and on bitcointalk as well if memory serves. I advise you to look u= p his description of the problem, almost everything he writes on the topic of crypto-coin theory is spot-on correct. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJR4vpGAAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPwu0IAMrzkVfI0CQuNJRCR+jwhNts juEerApSSpBes6CjLBJJYZWDdMReSl6izqNDancnJygYc+Q5/IkwBispyZyeIVqY HbV+jyAFQeVaJBZp8N+ZUDfN9/35SkPb4Y30dkq6V76hBfl+59bWq4qG0dhiO915 SBWAUPLspb5GOyu494GJUr4SPzgs9mAKfNGeQR2anOLj8Qam8Khfa4Zm5T5dX8WQ vBunUCLykPvWBC3nuTDBU5gQu4TGW9ivGB4p6yLr7MyaPQYZEnYGqgU/yIfAhnBj MfIfs6njPwhGMwteNmwLoS0VLRBFjWZDflquJ0NK6mNLR3c9yjOFMFPTTZFVinQ=3D =3Db40P -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----