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 ) id 1W1bLC-00040k-DG for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:37:34 +0000 Received: from mail-la0-f50.google.com ([209.85.215.50]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1W1bLB-0004uE-C0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:37:34 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id el20so3142025lab.37 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 04:37:26 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kyzxqJKwGefRWYn+y53PJ0W0lZJwOmQoF/c0qjjaOZQ=; b=eZZGc3RvMFkVbIztH765G2985TuzBbRGkwxHA3Ux6FFdv/CUdt2wb2B2FCLzDf7xny lcsqUrxSgdEhlowejDwXLfRsqiFVyLhjT0IpoJsxKjOHTmWedKkmBoT3EGu7zgYYW9vG 1+d9FfA3KU7MgB8CWuy0XDVx3GxCdomIqLM9EGLB51IptZz6Y4ukSY+RsahvJf9gv/QH Xb92XAebvxLKVgag2CKh8skkXPbv6D4GFtE3gKVP2Ce36UrM++VFjvOwA0ZJLpzo4tLj 9BV/g8Xu+uf5ipZsm+K1YDDx77Ys48ZHxxIaaWgZrgkG/qdvn2I6i72He2qOQ9hPz+Iv 1itA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnibdikKYrP+yc2ljAl13HJO4jNvBnq8Y3flzjE1KKiAbNZqaMnbFLk4YrQlW7YK9o0Kf0H MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.157.234 with SMTP id wp10mr3469499lbb.50.1389357446412; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 04:37:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.74.71 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 04:37:26 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [85.53.148.187] In-Reply-To: <20140110112542.GA19426@savin> References: <20131230232225.GA10594@tilt> <201312310114.05600.luke@dashjr.org> <20140101045342.GA7103@tilt> <20140103210139.GB30273@savin> <20140106154456.GA18449@savin> <20140110111128.GC25749@savin> <20140110112542.GA19426@savin> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:37:26 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= To: Peter Todd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1W1bLB-0004uE-C0 Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The insecurity of merge-mining X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:37:34 -0000 On 1/10/14, Peter Todd wrote: > Come to think of it, we've got that exact situation right now: the new > Twister P2P Microblogging thing has a blockchain for registering > usernames that could have been easily done with Namecoin, thus in theory > Namecoin owners have an incentive to make sure the Twister blockchain > gets killed at birth. You don't have to MM from birth. That I've already agreed is dangerous. But if you start with SHA256, then merged mining is a trivial fork at least 3 currencies have done successfully. As said we plan to make Freicoin merge-mineable in the future, and we expect to get much more security after we do. The only "adverse" effect may be a temporary drop in price due to the new miners selling all the frc they get until a new price equilibrates with the demand. But that's not really "bad for the currency", just to the holders at that moment. > Pretty easy to do right now too as the hashing power behind Twister is > miniscule and probably will stay that way - the only incentive to mining > is that you get the right to make a "promoted post" - called a spam > message in the codebase - that in theory Twister clients are supposed to > show to their users. Of course, there's absolutely no way to guarantee > that clients actually do that. If a system doesn't compensate its miners in a liquid enough way, the system will probably be insecure, but that's another topic...