Re: [Bitcoin-development] Privacy and blockchain data

2014-01-10 Thread Peter Todd
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

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

2014-01-10 Thread Peter Todd
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

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

2014-01-10 Thread Peter Todd
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses

2014-01-10 Thread Peter Todd
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

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

2014-01-10 Thread Jorge Timón
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

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

2014-01-10 Thread Jorge Timón
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

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

2014-01-10 Thread Peter Todd
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