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 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
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
On 1/1/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 01:14:05AM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
On Monday, December 30, 2013 11:22:25 PM Peter Todd wrote:
that you are using merge-mining is a red-flag because without majority,
or
at least near-majority, hashing power an attacker
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 08:14:25PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
You assume the value of a crypto-currency is equal to all miners, it's
not.
They should be able to sell the reward at similar prices in the market.
Attackers are losing the opportunity cost of mining the currency by
attacking
On 1/3/14, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 08:14:25PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
You assume the value of a crypto-currency is equal to all miners, it's
not.
They should be able to sell the reward at similar prices in the market.
Attackers are losing the
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 01:14:05AM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
On Monday, December 30, 2013 11:22:25 PM Peter Todd wrote:
that you are using merge-mining is a red-flag because without majority, or
at least near-majority, hashing power an attacker can 51% attack your
altcoin at negligible cost by
On Wednesday, January 01, 2014 4:53:42 AM Peter Todd wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 01:14:05AM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
On Monday, December 30, 2013 11:22:25 PM Peter Todd wrote:
that you are using merge-mining is a red-flag because without majority,
or at least near-majority, hashing power
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 05:09:27AM +, Luke-Jr wrote:
You assume the value of a crypto-currency is equal to all miners, it's
not.
Suppose I create a merge-mined Zerocoin implementation with a 1:1
BTC/ZTC exchange rate enforced by the software. You can't argue this is
a scamcoin;
12 matches
Mail list logo
