On 1/10/14, Peter Todd wrote:
> Because there aren't that many pools out there and Ixcoin (and devcoin)
> appear to have been lucky enough to servive long enough to get the
> support of a reasonably big one. Once you do that, the potential
> attackers have PR to think about. (namecoin especially h
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:29:03PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On 1/10/14, Peter Todd 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 because I tho
On 1/10/14, Peter Todd 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 make sure the
On 1/10/14, 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 apply. For instance if I were
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:28:33AM +, Drak wrote:
> On 10 January 2014 10:20, Peter Todd 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 isn't used in
On 10 January 2014 10:20, Peter Todd 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 isn't used in the scriptPubKey at all, or
> is part of a n-of-m multisig. (n>
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 certain
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 06:19:04PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On 1/6/14, Peter Todd 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
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:20:57AM -0800, Jeremy Spilman wrote:
> Thanks Peter for the paper!
>
> I'm just going to restate your 'simple explanation' to make sure I
> got it...
>
> The payee publishes a public key of theirs, which will be a
> long-standing identifier, public key = 'Q', correspond
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
> > remaind
10 matches
Mail list logo
