Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.217.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.217.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-lb0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20130211191259.GA22257@crunch>
References: <20130208100354.GA26627@crunch> <20130208110108.GA6893@savin>
	<20130209143325.GA3998@crunch> <201302091901.49930.luke@dashjr.org>
	<20130211191259.GA22257@crunch>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:21:25 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgST69zZAWPbkuLGPCY36SNOiNFVjSmp-HRVRHF+wcZqYg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: timo.hanke@web.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Blockchain as root CA for payment protocol
Precedence: list

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Timo Hanke <timo.hanke@web.de> wrote:
> It's not about technical differences, but about the different use or
> purpose, which can result in different security demands. I argue that
> DNS has a lower demand in this respect than payment ids have. So DNS
> data can be in a chain with a hashrate lower than bitcoin's hashrate but
> payment ids _for_ bitcoin have to be in a chain with equal hashrate.

It seems you're not very well informed about what namecoin does=E2=80=94 it=
's
a multiple namespace key-value store. And, as Peter pointed out=E2=80=94 a
non-parasitic system can have exactly the same POW hashpower. Namecoin
chose a model which made it so that namecoin could survive even if
Bitcoin failed, but you don't have to.

I strongly recommend you listen to Peter and Luke=E2=80=94 externalizing th=
e
costs of your services onto people who do not care about them is not
going to produce good results for anyone. It's possible to accomplish
what you want to accomplish without taking resources from the users of
the Bitcoin currency without their consent=E2=80=94 and you have people her=
e
who are willing to help you figure out how.