Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of astutium.com
	designates 80.76.216.240 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=80.76.216.240; envelope-from=rob.golding@astutium.com;
	helo=web.astutium.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 07:38:26 +0000
From: rob.golding@astutium.com
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <op.w8x4c8vbyldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
References: <CAMkFLsSwKEiEtV1OaAsGPiU8iAWbb77fDNJDmRwbgKnZ_kjG6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131230232225.GA10594@tilt> <201312310114.05600.luke@dashjr.org>
	<op.w8x4c8vbyldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <9aaa913f73f45db41d94d93d02eed3fa@astutium.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Merge mining
Precedence: list

> But there's so much 'dry powder' out there (GPUs), I wonder if *not*
> supporting merge-mining is any better? At least the attacker has to do
> some unique PoW, so you hope it's costing them something.

With lots of people having access to 100TH+ there's not really much 
'cost' to doing a 51% attack on an alt-coin beyond a short-term 
diversion away from 'profitable' mining.

At least by supporting merged mining, more miners are likely to 
'support' multiple coin types, thus making a 51% attack from an 
individual/group less straightforward.

>> The rational decision for a non-scam altcoin, is to take advantage of
>> merged mining to get as much security as possible.

Exactly.

Rob