On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:55:28PM +1100, Gareth Williams wrote:
I covered this in my original post: 1-way-pegs allow the creation of new
valuable tokens without those tokens being useful for speculation.
I stand corrected. A permanent 1-way-peg is sufficient to preserve
scarcity; nothing
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Comparisons with the SPV security of sidechains are fallacious. The
alternative to a proof-of-publication system reliant on client-side
validation is a blockchain. The question of whether the token used on
said blockchain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
bleep bloop
Peter Todd:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 01:41:34PM +, odinn wrote:
Peter... It kind of sounds to me that (as fine of a position
paper as this is) on _certain_ points, you're falling prey to the
but it's inefficient, but it's a
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 07:50:48PM +0200, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
I think what Gareth was getting at was that with client-side validation
there can be no concept of a soft-fork. And how certain are you that the
consensus rules will never change?
Yes, it is true that you can't do a
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 12:32:22AM +1100, Gareth Williams wrote:
On 13/12/14 04:04, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
Well, client-side validation is mathematically secure, while SPV is
economically secure.
I.e. it is secure if you make several assumptions about economics of the
whole thing.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 01:41:34PM +, odinn wrote:
Peter... It kind of sounds to me that (as fine of a position paper as
this is) on _certain_ points, you're falling prey to the but it's
inefficient, but it's a scamcoin, but luke-jr told me so argument...
I prefer to make robust arguments;
On 13/12/14 04:04, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
Well, client-side validation is mathematically secure, while SPV is
economically secure.
I.e. it is secure if you make several assumptions about economics of the
whole thing.
Comparisons with the SPV security of sidechains are fallacious. The
alternative
On 12/12/14 20:05, Peter Todd wrote:
Secondly using a limited-supply token in a proof-of-publicaton system is
what lets you have secure client side validation rather than the
alternative of 2-way-pegging that requires users to trust miners not to
steal the pegged funds.
Secure and client
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Peter... It kind of sounds to me that (as fine of a position paper as
this is) on _certain_ points, you're falling prey to the but it's
inefficient, but it's a scamcoin, but luke-jr told me so argument...
I think the Mastercoin devs are doing fine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/12/2014 01:41 PM, odinn wrote:
I think the Mastercoin devs are doing fine work
I wonder if all the Mastercoin devs would agree with that statement.
- --
Support online privacy by using email encryption whenever possible.
Learn how here:
Secure and client side validation don't really belong in the same
sentence, do they?
Well, client-side validation is mathematically secure, while SPV is
economically secure.
I.e. it is secure if you make several assumptions about economics of the
whole thing.
In my opinion the former is
I think what Gareth was getting at was that with client-side validation
there can be no concept of a soft-fork. And how certain are you that the
consensus rules will never change?
Yes, it is true that you can't do a soft-fork, but you can do a hard-fork.
Using scheduled updates: client simply
12 matches
Mail list logo
