1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <david.vorick@gmail.com>) id 1VzO9f-0004wj-UH
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:08:31 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.192.180 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.192.180; envelope-from=david.vorick@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pd0-f180.google.com;
Received: from mail-pd0-f180.google.com ([209.85.192.180])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VzO9f-0005fV-2w
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:08:31 +0000
Received: by mail-pd0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q10so16295358pdj.39
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 04 Jan 2014 02:08:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.98.3 with SMTP id ee3mr18067293pbb.31.1388830105201; Sat,
04 Jan 2014 02:08:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.242.197 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 02:08:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAC1+kJNsSdpYE6c5qM7-UjG340p_FV8p22O4OMy8f=QgxK2DMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMkFLsSwKEiEtV1OaAsGPiU8iAWbb77fDNJDmRwbgKnZ_kjG6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20131230232225.GA10594@tilt> <201312310114.05600.luke@dashjr.org>
<op.w8x4c8vbyldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
<9aaa913f73f45db41d94d93d02eed3fa@astutium.com>
<CAFVRnyr+fikViQWgM0-dEoPD4HF2OGAh3EHaYK5mEskNhZ25Ag@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC1+kJNsSdpYE6c5qM7-UjG340p_FV8p22O4OMy8f=QgxK2DMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 05:08:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFVRnyqNwuEbn7whEEA3ySpEq7eTqJLYuQLfefs6e0UDdm4mYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@monetize.io>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d905412f1da04ef2235cc
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [209.85.192.180 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-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
(david.vorick[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1VzO9f-0005fV-2w
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Merge 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, 04 Jan 2014 10:08:32 -0000
--047d7b6d905412f1da04ef2235cc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It's meant to be in favor of merge mining.
Dogecoin uses scrypt, which is a very popular algorithm. If any large
currency were to be attacked through merge mining, it would probably be
litecoin miners attacking dogecoin. But if you control enough of the
litecoin network to do attack mining against dogecoin, you almost certainly
have a huge vested interest in cryptocurrencies doing well. By attacking
dogecoin successfully, you'll cast doubt on the entire cryptocurrency
ecosystem and hurt yourself in the process.
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Jorge Tim=F3n <jtimon@monetize.io> wrote:
> On 1/4/14, David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you have the resources to attack one of the bigger altcoins, you
> > probably have a significant investment in the cryptocurrency space, and=
a
> > significant interest in protecting it. Compromising even something like
> > dogecoin would cause a lot of questions to be raised and likely drop th=
e
> > value of bitcoin as well as all the cryptocurrencies using the same wor=
k
> > function as dogecoin.
> >
> > Right now, there's very little benefit to attacking a significant
> currency,
> > because it would be very expensive and likely traumatize the whole
> system.
> > Unless it's some power like the NSA, I don't think there's much to worr=
y
> > about.
>
> The launch thread says it clear: "very scrypt, such random, much
> profit, wow, many coin".
> So it seems that Dogecoin doesn't use SHA256 like Bitcoin, but scrypt
> like most of the other scamcoins.
> Anyway, I don't see anything in your comment in favor or against
> merged mining...
>
--047d7b6d905412f1da04ef2235cc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>It's meant to be in favor of merge mining.<br><br=
></div>Dogecoin uses scrypt, which is a very popular algorithm. If any larg=
e currency were to be attacked through merge mining, it would probably be l=
itecoin miners attacking dogecoin. But if you control enough of the litecoi=
n network to do attack mining against dogecoin, you almost certainly have a=
huge vested interest in cryptocurrencies doing well. By attacking dogecoin=
successfully, you'll cast doubt on the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem=
and hurt yourself in the process.<br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat,=
Jan 4, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Jorge Tim=F3n <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mai=
lto:jtimon@monetize.io" target=3D"_blank">jtimon@monetize.io</a>></span>=
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 1/4/14, David Vorick <<a href=3D"mailt=
o:david.vorick@gmail.com">david.vorick@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> If you have the resources to attack one of the bigger altcoins, you<br=
>
> probably have a significant investment in the cryptocurrency space, an=
d a<br>
> significant interest in protecting it. Compromising even something lik=
e<br>
> dogecoin would cause a lot of questions to be raised and likely drop t=
he<br>
> value of bitcoin as well as all the cryptocurrencies using the same wo=
rk<br>
> function as dogecoin.<br>
><br>
> Right now, there's very little benefit to attacking a significant =
currency,<br>
> because it would be very expensive and likely traumatize the whole sys=
tem.<br>
> Unless it's some power like the NSA, I don't think there's=
much to worry<br>
> about.<br>
<br>
The launch thread says it clear: "very scrypt, such random, much<br>
profit, wow, many coin".<br>
So it seems that Dogecoin doesn't use SHA256 like Bitcoin, but scrypt<b=
r>
like most of the other scamcoins.<br>
Anyway, I don't see anything in your comment in favor or against<br>
merged mining...<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--047d7b6d905412f1da04ef2235cc--
|
