MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFVRnyr+fikViQWgM0-dEoPD4HF2OGAh3EHaYK5mEskNhZ25Ag@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>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 11:05:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAC1+kJNsSdpYE6c5qM7-UjG340p_FV8p22O4OMy8f=QgxK2DMA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@monetize.io>
To: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Merge mining
Precedence: list

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 the
> value of bitcoin as well as all the cryptocurrencies using the same work
> 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 worry
> 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...