On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 10:34:46PM -0800, Jeremy Spilman wrote:
2) Common prefixes: Generate addresses such that for a given wallet they
all share a fixed prefix. The length of that prefix determines the
anonymity set and associated privacy/bandwidth tradeoff, which
remainds a fixed
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 06:19:04PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
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
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 certainely
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:28:33AM +, Drak wrote:
On 10 January 2014 10:20, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention it in my first write-up but you can
easily make stealth addresses include a second pubkey for the purpose of
the communication that either
On 1/10/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org 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
On 1/10/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org 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
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:29:03PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
On 1/10/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org 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
7 matches
Mail list logo
