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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <adam.back@gmail.com>) id 1UnaxG-0001IY-2N
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:50:42 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.83.51 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.83.51; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ee0-f51.google.com;
Received: from mail-ee0-f51.google.com ([74.125.83.51])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UnaxF-0006LJ-2M
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:50:42 +0000
Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id e52so586852eek.38
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:50:34 -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:in-reply-to:user-agent:x-hashcash
:x-hashcash;
bh=GnnQoXe6X0BjzQCbGwQ+CgAo5L9kc99jTsMnMip3xmE=;
b=PJNF/YgjowOoCD1ma7lP0+7Y4r8GybVk7HsW8ItQUukwgOwe0XyfrifZwUJ5IsbGTg
u/v35xTBjJjh8AREgwBWuAzZYjqSKEqfO3JpcriYIQWRhlOHa6FthuXDBH7VAQdgjinE
bdva5AzE10Pdu2Wf2PCkICy2sQBoxqjAtupMZ7XDFGprXxwLreKScvzItvcpuLzJKd8v
8grLaLnDw5xEvlv+jh3LmGH5eSc56BawIvxqoIOSRjwRtFC/RtsH7hUTjE3ILXHsMcGn
F2UVOxBQFi8fTkYtovlCy+8p8YRq3Bv9gcgsmDRHTjX7cTeTHiQKzyOpCjH2xD4VL/Zf
xHVA==
X-Received: by 10.14.148.136 with SMTP id v8mr5030280eej.128.1371243034708;
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netbook (c83-90.i07-21.onvol.net. [92.251.83.90])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p43sm5889416eem.11.2013.06.14.13.50.33
for <multiple recipients>
(version=TLSv1.1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id D32042E046F; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:50:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000);
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:50:31 +0200
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:50:31 +0200
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Message-ID: <20130614205031.GB10215@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <20130519132359.GA12366@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<20130613133932.GA13028@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<20130614192058.GA11509@petertodd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130614192058.GA11509@petertodd.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Hashcash: 1:20:130614:pete@petertodd.org::NxcQ18DlteATIaBW:0000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000002X9
X-Hashcash: 1:20:130614:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::XoEsm72vbPYq/
0Pv:000000000000000000000ifm
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: 1UnaxF-0006LJ-2M
Cc: Bitcoin-Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] is there a way to do bitcoin-staging?
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: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:50:42 -0000
Agreed. What I mean is a coinbase for parity-priced alt-coin would be
intentionally considered (and required by the alt-coin to be considered) an
invalid bitcoin address, and vice versa. The difference is for this purpose
it is both valid alt-coin coinbase (as well as unspendable bitcoin
coinbase).
Adam
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 03:20:58PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 03:39:32PM +0200, Adam Back wrote:
>> I had one thought towards this which is a different kind of merged mining.
>>
>> I think a "fair" merged mining aiming for price parity would be done by the
>> miner having to choose the altcoin or btc at mine time, and altcoin chain
>> considering btc mine unspendable and bitcoin considering ac unspendable.
>
>One way to look at what you are describing is to say you want to prove
>your sacrifice of potential BTC earnings. That goes back to the PoW
>hashcash stuff I mentioned earlier, and is accomplished by simply mining
>shares with an unspendable coinbase to prove you did work that could
>have resulted in Bitcoins, but didn't.
|
