From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr•org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Cc: Jorge
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] libzerocoin released, what about a zerocoin-only alt-coin with either-or mining
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 19:33:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201307141933.13754.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPaL=UVmr1zng6QtngkY-Y+fP+E67NST7MYRpkSHfjtwZ7PFNw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1871 bytes --]
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 matter how is mined. And if the price rises it will
> > make sense to spend more on mining.
>
> 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 will tend toward equalizing in costs.
In any case, the cryptocurrencies are neutral to cost of mining, or perhaps
even benefit from it being as cheap as possible: if it's cheaper to mine, you
can get an even higher difficulty/security out of it.
> 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, either because it's market value is low or the worth is negative to
> the malicious miner, your theories of value have nothing to do with the
> issue.
Invalid blocks are rejected by validating clients in all circumstances.
I suspect you may mean a block that doesn't include transactions you want
confirmed. In that case, you must not be paying sufficient fees for the miner
to consider it worth their time, or must be doing something the miner
considers fundamentally objectionable (in which case they won't be satisfied
by any fee). But these miners, unless they are able to acquire over 50% of the
hashrate (in which case the cryptocoin is compromised), are not the only ones
mining blocks, and if another miner accepts your transactions there is no
issue.
Luke
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1530 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-14 19:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-05 14:01 Adam Back
2013-07-12 13:18 ` Peter Todd
2013-07-13 9:51 ` Jorge Timón
2013-07-13 9:53 ` Jorge Timón
2013-07-13 18:32 ` Peter Vessenes
2013-07-15 9:51 ` Peter Todd
2013-07-15 13:05 ` Jorge Timón
2013-07-15 20:29 ` Peter Todd
2013-07-16 3:54 ` Peter Vessenes
2013-07-13 18:42 ` Adam Back
2013-07-14 11:18 ` Jorge Timón
2013-07-14 19:22 ` John Dillon
2013-07-14 19:33 ` Luke-Jr [this message]
2013-07-14 19:42 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-07-14 19:52 ` John Dillon
2013-07-14 20:16 ` Luke-Jr
2013-07-15 0:12 ` Peter Todd
2013-07-15 1:51 ` Luke-Jr
2013-07-15 1:59 ` Peter Todd
2013-07-14 19:48 ` John Dillon
2013-07-15 0:14 ` Adam Back
2013-07-15 0:29 ` Peter Todd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201307141933.13754.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox