From: Isidor Zeuner <cryptocurrencies@quidecco.de>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
References: <417518B4-1E4D-4467-BC87-95C9EAF0C599@bitsofproof.com>
	<CA+s+GJAe9MeO+Sr0+2BRwu3q-Be5JQt_s_xdnBBEcquXqOyxcA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <417518B4-1E4D-4467-BC87-95C9EAF0C599@bitsofproof.com>
Message-Id: <20141211120916.E912EE22B92@quidecco.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:09:16 +0100 (CET)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Merged mining a side chain with proof of
	burn	on parent chain
Precedence: list

[...]
> The Bitcoin miner will include burn transactions because they offer
> Bitcoin fees. Bitcoin miner can not selectively block side chains
> since the hashes associated with the burn do not disclose which side
> chain or other project they are for. Here you have a =93merged
> mining=94 that does not need Bitcoin miner support or even consent.
>

Miners might decide to block all burn transactions, and other nodes
might decide to stop relaying them. This may be considered as
preferable by all participants who do not want to add more potential
for deflation.

Best regards,

Isidor