On 1/10/14, Peter Todd wrote:
> Because there aren't that many pools out there and Ixcoin (and devcoin)
> appear to have been lucky enough to servive long enough to get the
> support of a reasonably big one. Once you do that, the potential
> attackers have PR to think about. (namecoin especially h
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:29:03PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On 1/10/14, Peter Todd wrote:
> > 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 tho
On 1/10/14, Peter Todd wrote:
> 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
On 1/10/14, Peter Todd wrote:
>> Fair enough.
>> Do you see any case where an independently pow validated altcoin is
>> more secure than a merged mined one?
>
> Situations where decentralized consensus systems are competing for
> market share in some domain certainely apply. For instance if I were
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?
>
> Situations where decentralized consensus systems are competing for
> market share in some domain certain
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 06:19:04PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On 1/6/14, Peter Todd wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 01:27:42AM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> > It's not meant to prove anything - the proof-of-sacrificed-bitcoins
> > mentioned(*) in it is secure only if Bitcoin itself is secure and
On 1/6/14, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 01:27:42AM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> It's not meant to prove anything - the proof-of-sacrificed-bitcoins
> mentioned(*) in it is secure only if Bitcoin itself is secure and
> functional. I referred you to it because understanding the system
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 01:27:42AM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> > It's a thought experiment; read my original post on how to make a
> > zerocoin alt-chain and it might make more sense:
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02472.html
> >
> > Even better mig
On 1/3/14, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 08:14:25PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
>> > You assume the value of a crypto-currency is equal to all miners, it's
>> > not.
>>
>> They should be able to sell the reward at similar prices in the market.
>> Attackers are losing the opportunity co
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 08:14:25PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> > You assume the value of a crypto-currency is equal to all miners, it's
> > not.
>
> They should be able to sell the reward at similar prices in the market.
> Attackers are losing the opportunity cost of mining the currency by
> attac
On 1/1/14, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 01:14:05AM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
>> On Monday, December 30, 2013 11:22:25 PM Peter Todd wrote:
>> > that you are using merge-mining is a red-flag because without majority,
>> > or
>> > at least near-majority, hashing power an attacker can 51%
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 05:09:27AM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > You assume the value of a crypto-currency is equal to all miners, it's
> > not.
> >
> > Suppose I create a merge-mined Zerocoin implementation with a 1:1
> > BTC/ZTC exchange rate enforced by the software. You can't argue this is
> > a s
On Wednesday, January 01, 2014 4:53:42 AM Peter Todd wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 01:14:05AM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > On Monday, December 30, 2013 11:22:25 PM Peter Todd wrote:
> > > that you are using merge-mining is a red-flag because without majority,
> > > or at least near-majority, hashin
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 01:14:05AM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Monday, December 30, 2013 11:22:25 PM Peter Todd wrote:
> > that you are using merge-mining is a red-flag because without majority, or
> > at least near-majority, hashing power an attacker can 51% attack your
> > altcoin at negligible co
14 matches
Mail list logo
