On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 01:51:21AM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Monday, July 15, 2013 12:12:23 AM Peter Todd wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:16:41PM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > > P.S. How about a Zerocoin with no-reward/PoSacrifice merged mining as
> > > well as (rewarded) Prime POW; maybe with n
On Monday, July 15, 2013 12:12:23 AM Peter Todd wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:16:41PM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > P.S. How about a Zerocoin with no-reward/PoSacrifice merged mining as
> > well as (rewarded) Prime POW; maybe with no subsidy halving, to try a
> > new economic idea as well ;)
>
>
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 07:22:10PM +, John Dillon wrote:
> Peter: I'm a bit confused by this concept of "bi-directional sacrifice"
> though,
> I assume there exists only a sacrifice in one direction right? Wouldn't
> selling
> a zerocoin be just a matter of giving zerocoin a rule so that the
I think bi-directional sacrifice is probably not needed to assure a close to
1:1 bi-directional peg.
(Bi-directional sacrifice meaning also to convert a zerocoin to a bitcoin
you sacrifice a zerocoin and bitcoin would be modified to accept a zerocoin
sacrifice as a way to replace a previously sacr
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:16:41PM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
> P.S. How about a Zerocoin with no-reward/PoSacrifice merged mining as well as
> (rewarded) Prime POW; maybe with no subsidy halving, to try a new economic
> idea as well ;)
Your ideas about making an alt-coin have anything to do with has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
It's been pointed out recently how a fairly cheap attack on the Bitcoin network
would be to take advantage of the fact that we limit the number of incoming
connections, but don't require anything of those connections. This means an
attacker can simpl
On Sunday, July 14, 2013 7:42:06 PM Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 07:33:06PM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > > The issue 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 07:33:06PM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
>> Invalid blocks are rejected by validating clients in all circumstances.
>
> I don't think that's what John means.
>
> If you have has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
>> Merge mining is very much mining a coin for free. Ask not what the total
>> reward is, ask that the marginal cost of merge mining an additional coin
>> is.
>
> But the total reward is what mining wi
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 07:33:06PM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > The issue 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 maliciously or through negligence. If the coin isn't worth
> > much, eithe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 07:05:26PM +, John Dillon wrote:
>> Long-term we should be using P2SH with an inner OP_CHECKSIG for most
>> addresses
>> as it's a 1 byte savings. Change addresses
On Sunday, July 14, 2013 7:22:10 PM John Dillon wrote:
> > 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 matt
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 07:05:26PM +, John Dillon wrote:
> Long-term we should be using P2SH with an inner OP_CHECKSIG for most addresses
> as it's a 1 byte savings. Change addresses can have this done first, although
> bitcoinj support will help so that satoshidice and similar sites can pay to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Jorge Timón 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
As you all know keeping the size of the UTXO set small is critical, and more
recently we've also had problems with distasteful data being added to the UTXO
set. (http://garzikrants.blogspot.se/2013_04_01_archive.html) Gregory Maxwell
has an excellent
I was talking about bi-directional sacrifice.
If zerocoin has it, I want the same on top of freicoin so that btc/frc
can be traded p2p.
Why zerocoin and not the 20 other altchains are going to ask for it?
Ripplers will want it too, why not?
All the arguments in favor of this pegging use zerocoin's
16 matches
Mail list logo
