I'm at the Aspen Institute right now talking about Bitcoin and I mentioned
the perils of starting an alt-chain based on proof of work that pool
operators might attack; funny synchronicity!
Peter
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:05:52PM +0200, Jorg
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:05:52PM +0200, Jorge Timón wrote:
> One way sacrifice (btc to zerocoin) is a non-issue since there's no
> modification required for bitcoin and you can't do anything to prevent
> it anyway.
> The controversial thing is sacrificing something outside bitcoin's
> chain and n
One way sacrifice (btc to zerocoin) is a non-issue since there's no
modification required for bitcoin and you can't do anything to prevent
it anyway.
The controversial thing is sacrificing something outside bitcoin's
chain and new btc appearing.
On merged mining. It is true that "merged attacking"
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:32:39AM -0700, Peter Vessenes wrote:
> One very real issue for alt-currencies that don't peg to Bitcoin is that
> market liquidity is a bitch. By almost all standards current global Bitcoin
> liquidity is already very, very low. Too low for many transactions that
> come a
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
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
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
-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
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
One very real issue for alt-currencies that don't peg to Bitcoin is that
market liquidity is a bitch. By almost all standards current global Bitcoin
liquidity is already very, very low. Too low for many transactions that
come across my desk at least.
There are a lot of reasons for that low liquidi
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:51:14AM +0200, Jorge Timón wrote:
>I don't see the need to peg zerocoins to bitcoins.
Without a bitcoin peg on the creation cost of zerocoins, it is hard for a
new alt-coin to have a stable value. Bitcoin itself is volatile enough.
Generally the available compute for m
Sorry about that.
Maybe more important, what's wrong with bitcoin and zerocoin being
different currencies with an exchange rate completely decided by the
market instead of trying to force 1:1 ???
On 7/13/13, Jorge Timón wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand the whole proposal, but it seems to me th
I'm not sure I understand the whole proposal, but it seems to me that
having different characteristics, bitcoins and zerocoins would be
different currencies.
I don't see the need to peg zerocoins to bitcoins.
It is great to have an anonymous p2p currency, maybe some bitcoin
users that use bitcoin b
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 04:01:40PM +0200, Adam Back wrote:
> Do people think that should work? It seems to me it should with minimal,
> bitcoin changes. I think the rule for either-or mining should be as simple
> as skipping the value / double-spend validation of the blocks that are
> zerocoin mi
Hi
I presume everyone saw the announce from Matthew Green & Ian Miers at JHU on
the release of libzerocoin: https://github.com/Zerocoin/libzerocoin
So now that raises the question of how can people experiment with real money
with zerocoin. I think its fair to summarize there is resistance to mer
22 matches
Mail list logo
