Peter Vessenes [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-07-16 📝 Original message:I'm at the Aspen Institute ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-07-16
📝 Original message: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 <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> 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 new btc appearing.
>
> Which is why I'm not proposing that.
>
> > On merged mining. It is true that "merged attacking" the other chain
> > is free, but it is still more profitable to just follow the rules and
> > mine the other coin!!
> > If someone considers that something he can sell in a market for btc is
> > "negative value"...well, he's just dammed stupid. Proof of work is
> > designed for rational actors, if you stop assuming miners are more or
> > less rational everything falls apart. It is possible that the "extra
> > value" is too little for some miners to bother. But the extra costs of
> > validating something else are so little compared to chance-hashing
> > that miners not merged mining namecoin right now are just stupid
> > (irrational agents). You can merged mine and sell for btc right away.
>
> You are assuming value is the same for everyone - it's not.
>
> If I mine in a jurisdiction where zerocoin is banned, and the blocks I
> mine are public, the value of zerocoin blocks to me are at best zero.
> Equally it would be easy for the local authorities to ask that I merge
> mine zerocoin blocks to attack the chain - it doesn't cost me anything
> so what's the harm? I may even choose to do so to preserve the value of
> the coins I can mine legally - alt-coins are competition.
>
> Incedentally keep in mind it is likely that in the future pools will not
> allow miners to modify the work units they receive in any way as a means
> of combating block-withholding fraud; there may not be very many people
> willing or able to honestly merge-mine any given chain.
>
> Proof-of-sacrifice can be done in a way that is opaque to the master
> blockchain by creating txouts that look no different from any other
> txout. Hopefully not required, but it would be a good strategy against
> censorship of sacrifice-based chains.
>
> > On prime proof of work...for me it's interseting only because it's
> > moving towards SCIP-based mining but that should be the goal. Like
> > Mark said, "let's cure cancer" while mining. That would end all
> > "mining is wasteful" arguments about this great security system. This
> > would make Ripple's consensus mechanism less attractive. People
> > talking about new scrypts harder to ASIC-mine when that's the elephant
> > in the room...
> > Sorry, I'm going off-topic.
> > SCIP-based merged mining for the win.
>
> SCIP is for now a dream. Give it a few more years and see how the
> technology shakes out.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000582cc323897a582e9368a5c3dfbcdcf73e78b261703e1bd1ba
>
--
------------------------------
[image: CoinLab Logo]PETER VESSENES
CEO
*peter at coinlab.com * / 206.486.6856 / SKYPE: vessenes
900 Winslow Way East / SUITE 100 / Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130715/d32dcc9b/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message: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 <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> 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 new btc appearing.
>
> Which is why I'm not proposing that.
>
> > On merged mining. It is true that "merged attacking" the other chain
> > is free, but it is still more profitable to just follow the rules and
> > mine the other coin!!
> > If someone considers that something he can sell in a market for btc is
> > "negative value"...well, he's just dammed stupid. Proof of work is
> > designed for rational actors, if you stop assuming miners are more or
> > less rational everything falls apart. It is possible that the "extra
> > value" is too little for some miners to bother. But the extra costs of
> > validating something else are so little compared to chance-hashing
> > that miners not merged mining namecoin right now are just stupid
> > (irrational agents). You can merged mine and sell for btc right away.
>
> You are assuming value is the same for everyone - it's not.
>
> If I mine in a jurisdiction where zerocoin is banned, and the blocks I
> mine are public, the value of zerocoin blocks to me are at best zero.
> Equally it would be easy for the local authorities to ask that I merge
> mine zerocoin blocks to attack the chain - it doesn't cost me anything
> so what's the harm? I may even choose to do so to preserve the value of
> the coins I can mine legally - alt-coins are competition.
>
> Incedentally keep in mind it is likely that in the future pools will not
> allow miners to modify the work units they receive in any way as a means
> of combating block-withholding fraud; there may not be very many people
> willing or able to honestly merge-mine any given chain.
>
> Proof-of-sacrifice can be done in a way that is opaque to the master
> blockchain by creating txouts that look no different from any other
> txout. Hopefully not required, but it would be a good strategy against
> censorship of sacrifice-based chains.
>
> > On prime proof of work...for me it's interseting only because it's
> > moving towards SCIP-based mining but that should be the goal. Like
> > Mark said, "let's cure cancer" while mining. That would end all
> > "mining is wasteful" arguments about this great security system. This
> > would make Ripple's consensus mechanism less attractive. People
> > talking about new scrypts harder to ASIC-mine when that's the elephant
> > in the room...
> > Sorry, I'm going off-topic.
> > SCIP-based merged mining for the win.
>
> SCIP is for now a dream. Give it a few more years and see how the
> technology shakes out.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000582cc323897a582e9368a5c3dfbcdcf73e78b261703e1bd1ba
>
--
------------------------------
[image: CoinLab Logo]PETER VESSENES
CEO
*peter at coinlab.com * / 206.486.6856 / SKYPE: vessenes
900 Winslow Way East / SUITE 100 / Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130715/d32dcc9b/attachment.html>;