Re: [Bitcoin-development] Getting trusted metrics from the block chain in an untrusted environment ?

2014-01-09 Thread Rob Golding
 My program should run on lightweight/embedded hardware. The execution
 environment provides access to the Bitcoin network but not enough
 resources to set up a trusted node along with my program. 

So you want to 'benefit' from the network without contributing to it ?

 I would need a way to ask an untrusted Bitcoin node to compute some
 'metric request' on my behalf and having the result of that metric
 request validated by the network.

Not going to happen - why would anyone be interested in providing you 'free
compute resources' ?

 Is there any available or work-in-progress projects that would come
 close to this need ? Or should I do it myself ? :-)

Setup a node, create an API interface and have your 'app' use your API on
yoru node :p

Rob


--
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments  Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. 
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] The insecurity of merge-mining

2014-01-09 Thread Jorge Timón
On 1/6/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org 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 will
 help you understand my thinking behind merge-mining.

 *) It also mentions proof-of-sacrificed-zerocoins which *is* distinct
 because you're sacrificing the thing that the chain is about. Now that
 has some proof-of-stake tinges to it for sure - I myself am not
 convinced it is or isn't a viable scheme.

I'm not sure I understand all the differences between
proof-of-sacrificed-bitcoins and proof-of-sacrificed-newcoins, but I'm
still convinced this doesn't have anything to do with MM PoW vs PoW.
The idea looks very interesting and I will ask you and adam to
understand it better on IRC, but take into account that when you say
merged mining is insecure some people hear merged mined altcoins
are less secure than non-MM altcoins (which is false) and somehow
conclude scrypt altchains are more secure than SHA256 altchains.
Whether we like it or not, many people believe that scrypt, quark or
primecoin PoW algorithms are somehow more secure than SHA256, and
claims that merged mining is insecure from core bitcoin developers
contribute to spread those beliefs and that no new altcoin has been
created with the intend of being merged mined for quite a while.
I'm not trying to make you or anyone here responsible for the mistakes
other people make.

But rephrasing your claims as We're exploring new ideas for altchains
that could be more secure than MM... sounds very different from MM
is insecure, by the way look at this new idea...

 Feel free to ask for corrections in the example if you think it needs
 them.
 Feel free to bring your edge legal cases back, but please try to do it
 on top of the example.

 You're argument is perfectly valid and correct, *if* the assumptions
 behind it hold. The problem is you're assuming miners act rationally and
 have equal opportunities - that's a very big assumption and I have
 strong doubts it holds, particularly for alts with a small amount of
 hashing power.

That's why I made the offer above.
What you point out is the reason why freicoin started without merged
mining, to grow its own independent security first, before starting to
be merged mined.

 You know, something that I haven't made clear in this discussion is that
 while I think merge-mining is insecure, in the sense of should my new
 fancy alt-coin protocol widget use it?, I *also* don't think regular
 mining is much better. In some cases it will be worse due to social
 factors. (e.g. a bunch of big pools are going to merge-mine my scheme on
 launch day because it makes puppies cuter and kids smile)

Fair enough.
Do you see any case where an independently pow validated altcoin is
more secure than a merged mined one?
The reason why I participated in the discussion was that I believe
that merged mined PoW is more secure than
completely-independent-from-bitcoin pow.
And I thought that that was the general understanding in the Bitcoin
development community.

If that's the case, we agree on what's more important to me.

About the new proposal, I don't have a firm opinion yet. I'm sorry but
I have to understand it better and think about it in more depth.

--
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments  Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. 
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development