Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <adam.back@gmail.com>) id 1Uy4mH-0000HQ-M4
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 13 Jul 2013 18:42:41 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.177 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.177; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ea0-f177.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ea0-f177.google.com ([209.85.215.177])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Uy4mG-0008OA-Df
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Sat, 13 Jul 2013 18:42:41 +0000
Received: by mail-ea0-f177.google.com with SMTP id j14so6905602eak.36
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=google.com; s=20120113;
	h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
	:content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding
	:in-reply-to:user-agent:x-hashcash:x-hashcash:x-hashcash:x-hashcash;
	bh=rC40vMiyn8HQOmXbMD8vJlmyRuP+r9jZedBtNXrGPp0=;
	b=aNyRNgIXgipxdPtKtRKYIhujhCRgw5Bc1/CSrEJoEAqiCRvUFId5X26/T4NOi2Rk3j
	bg+Ku7xfiXti4HyydnTw6hbfacYzEoYhB4ETk5gJfMuVu39JTKuBunZPOxkxRw4ZiJj9
	vCVRRc5gdYvoRo2hdj/8IAFE4Zcjn9p0G0YXr3Pflloo3uUAa92TU6N824jLq8cJvKEH
	eJ26sM1X3TpdgEugEqIqaq4I39cN0PF2PPJe17kCu+J/0i+sTXzTUnrJ/WrTrQco6LPj
	UyznPRA8b5HJnMMo5mMlBdADe0szEERCQc2THJgk5RlpFfuvrvfDUGRAn/YjgiGYtJqb
	tzWQ==
X-Received: by 10.14.178.134 with SMTP id f6mr51434093eem.91.1373740953959;
	Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netbook (c83-90.i07-21.onvol.net. [92.251.83.90])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
	ci50sm88881066eeb.12.2013.07.13.11.42.31 for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1.1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 819942E05E5; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 20:42:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000);
	Sat, 13 Jul 2013 20:42:28 +0200
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 20:42:27 +0200
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Jorge =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@monetize.io>
Message-ID: <20130713184227.GA5902@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <20130705140140.GA23949@netbook.cypherspace.org>
	<20130712131815.GA18716@petertodd.org>
	<CAC1+kJOerE75+rtMHiy27aDLwWC9juAYva4u_iMVihnePTOYig@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAC1+kJOerE75+rtMHiy27aDLwWC9juAYva4u_iMVihnePTOYig@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Hashcash: 1:20:130713:jtimon@monetize.io::olNFetUDNs4AxRh5:0000000000000000000
	0000000000000000000000001Dnq
X-Hashcash: 1:20:130713:pete@petertodd.org::wg/An1H4I99kQgAW:0000000000000000000
	000000000000000000000000CMKB
X-Hashcash: 1:20:130713:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::pj6XS1oX3WRit
	SaW:000000000000000000002K5E
X-Hashcash: 1:20:130713:adam@cypherspace.org::GD3ETwchlKkl+U6u:00000000000000000
	0000000000000000000000000Cdc
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(adam.back[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1Uy4mG-0008OA-Df
Cc: Bitcoin-Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] libzerocoin released,
 what about a zerocoin-only alt-coin with either-or mining
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 18:42:41 -0000

On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:51:14AM +0200, Jorge Timón wrote:
>I don't see the need to peg zerocoins to bitcoins.

Without a bitcoin peg on the creation cost of zerocoins, it is hard for a
new alt-coin to have a stable value.  Bitcoin itself is volatile enough.

Generally the available compute for mining is what it is, adding more
alt-coins just dillutes the compute available for a given coin.  (Modulo
different mining functions like scrypt vs hashcash there is some
non-overlapping available compute because different hardware is more
efficient, or even cost-effective at all).

Merge mining is less desirable for the alt-coin - its mining is essentially
free, on top of bitcoin mining.  Cost free is maybe a weaker starting point
bootstrapping digital scarcity based market price.

I think that serves to explain why bitcoin sacrifice as a mining method is a
simple and stable cost starting point for an alt-coin.  

>I think this could be highly controversial [alt-coin pegging].  Maybe
>everybody likes it, but can you expand more on the justifications to peg
>the two currencies?

Bitcoin sacrifice related applications do not require code changes to
bitcoin itself, which avoids the discussion about fairness of which alt-coin
is supported, and about sacrifice-based pegging being added or not.

I dont think it necessarily hurts investors in bitcoins as it just creates
some deflation in the supply of bitcoin.

>If you're requiring one chain look at the othe for validations (miners
>will have to validate both to mine btc) you don't need the cross-chain
>contract, you can do it better.

You can sacrifice bitcoins as a way to mine zerocoins without having the
bitcoin network validate zerocoin.  For all bitcoin clients care the
sacrifice could be useless.

Bi-directional sacrifice is more tricky.  ie being allowed to re-create
previously destroyed bitcoins, based on the sacrifice of zerocoin.  That
would have other coin validation requirements.

But I am not sure 1:1 is necessarily far from the right price - the price is
arbitrary for a divisible token, so 1:1 is as good as any.  And the price
equality depends on the extra functionality or value from the
characteristics of the other coin.  The only thing I can see is zerocoin is
more cpu expensive to validate, the coins are bigger, but provide more
payment privacy (and so less taint).  Removing taint may mean that zercoins
should be worth more.  However if any tainted bitcoins can be converted to
zerocoin via sacrifice at 1:1, maybe the taint issue goes away - any coins
that are tainted to the point of value-loss will be converted to zerocoin,
and consequently the price to convert back should also be 1:1?

>You could do something like this:
>
>https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=31643.0

p2p transfer is a good idea.

Adam