📅 Original date posted:2013-07-14
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon at monetize.io> wrote:
> All the arguments in favor of this pegging use zerocoin's point of
> view. Sure it would be much better for it, but are additional costs to
> the bitcoin network and you cannot do it with every chain.
Seems that Peter is describing a system that requires no changes at all to the
Bitcoin codebase and thus there are no costs whatsoever.
Peter: I'm a bit confused by this concept of "bi-directional sacrifice" though,
I assume there exists only a sacrifice in one direction right? Wouldn't selling
a zerocoin be just a matter of giving zerocoin a rule so that the zerocoin tx
moving it to the new owner only happens if a specific form of bitcoin tx
happens too?
> Merged mining is not mining the coin for free. The total reward (ie
> btc + frc + nmc + dvc) should tend to equal the mining costs. But the
> value comes from demand, not costs. So if people demand it more it
> price will rise no matter how is mined. And if the price rises it will
> make sense to spend more on mining.
> "Bitcoins are worth because it costs to mine them" is a Marxian labor
> thory of value argument.
> It's the other way arround as Menger taught us.
Merge mining is very much mining a coin for free. Ask not what the total reward
is, ask that the marginal cost of merge mining an additional coin is. The issue
is that unless there is a cost to mining a *invalid* block the merge mined coin
has little protection from miners who mine invalid blocks, either maliciously
or through negligence. If the coin isn't worth much, either because it's market
value is low or the worth is negative to the malicious miner, your theories of
value have nothing to do with the issue.
Gregory Maxwell has written about this issue before on the #bitcoin-dev IRC
channel and on bitcointalk as well if memory serves. I advise you to look up
his description of the problem, almost everything he writes on the topic of
crypto-coin theory is spot-on correct.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJR4vpGAAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPwu0IAMrzkVfI0CQuNJRCR+jwhNts
juEerApSSpBes6CjLBJJYZWDdMReSl6izqNDancnJygYc+Q5/IkwBispyZyeIVqY
HbV+jyAFQeVaJBZp8N+ZUDfN9/35SkPb4Y30dkq6V76hBfl+59bWq4qG0dhiO915
SBWAUPLspb5GOyu494GJUr4SPzgs9mAKfNGeQR2anOLj8Qam8Khfa4Zm5T5dX8WQ
vBunUCLykPvWBC3nuTDBU5gQu4TGW9ivGB4p6yLr7MyaPQYZEnYGqgU/yIfAhnBj
MfIfs6njPwhGMwteNmwLoS0VLRBFjWZDflquJ0NK6mNLR3c9yjOFMFPTTZFVinQ=
=b40P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Dillon [ARCHIVE] /
npub15z…kn0zr
2023-06-07 17:04:16
in reply to nevent1q…xmu4
Author Public Key
npub15z6e9t07ugx267aj3s3c487pln852ydytzlgu0vkkqxfznyvx4jq4kn0zrPublished at
2023-06-07 17:04:16Event JSON
{
"id": "8672b1d72d8c6dc109653ef391beb0d48321f000b355b195663d1ec9e41a3e8c",
"pubkey": "a0b592adfee20cad7bb28c238a9fc1fccf4511a458be8e3d96b00c914c8c3564",
"created_at": 1686150256,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cf32f9244ec8b1dd20d6152d203f4bc42539f3e0a6414b474d959fe21b0c9b36",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9f11fb0ffa3c0ba8c523e0f36baf9db0fe8eceeddc2b5eec66e1bdb011e3aa3b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-07-14\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA256\n\nOn Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at monetize.io\u003e wrote:\n\u003e All the arguments in favor of this pegging use zerocoin's point of\n\u003e view. Sure it would be much better for it, but are additional costs to\n\u003e the bitcoin network and you cannot do it with every chain.\n\nSeems that Peter is describing a system that requires no changes at all to the\nBitcoin codebase and thus there are no costs whatsoever.\n\nPeter: I'm a bit confused by this concept of \"bi-directional sacrifice\" though,\nI assume there exists only a sacrifice in one direction right? Wouldn't selling\na zerocoin be just a matter of giving zerocoin a rule so that the zerocoin tx\nmoving it to the new owner only happens if a specific form of bitcoin tx\nhappens too?\n\n\u003e Merged mining is not mining the coin for free. The total reward (ie\n\u003e btc + frc + nmc + dvc) should tend to equal the mining costs. But the\n\u003e value comes from demand, not costs. So if people demand it more it\n\u003e price will rise no matter how is mined. And if the price rises it will\n\u003e make sense to spend more on mining.\n\u003e \"Bitcoins are worth because it costs to mine them\" is a Marxian labor\n\u003e thory of value argument.\n\u003e It's the other way arround as Menger taught us.\n\nMerge mining is very much mining a coin for free. Ask not what the total reward\nis, ask that the marginal cost of merge mining an additional coin is. The issue\nis that unless there is a cost to mining a *invalid* block the merge mined coin\nhas little protection from miners who mine invalid blocks, either maliciously\nor through negligence. If the coin isn't worth much, either because it's market\nvalue is low or the worth is negative to the malicious miner, your theories of\nvalue have nothing to do with the issue.\n\nGregory Maxwell has written about this issue before on the #bitcoin-dev IRC\nchannel and on bitcointalk as well if memory serves. I advise you to look up\nhis description of the problem, almost everything he writes on the topic of\ncrypto-coin theory is spot-on correct.\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)\n\niQEcBAEBCAAGBQJR4vpGAAoJEEWCsU4mNhiPwu0IAMrzkVfI0CQuNJRCR+jwhNts\njuEerApSSpBes6CjLBJJYZWDdMReSl6izqNDancnJygYc+Q5/IkwBispyZyeIVqY\nHbV+jyAFQeVaJBZp8N+ZUDfN9/35SkPb4Y30dkq6V76hBfl+59bWq4qG0dhiO915\nSBWAUPLspb5GOyu494GJUr4SPzgs9mAKfNGeQR2anOLj8Qam8Khfa4Zm5T5dX8WQ\nvBunUCLykPvWBC3nuTDBU5gQu4TGW9ivGB4p6yLr7MyaPQYZEnYGqgU/yIfAhnBj\nMfIfs6njPwhGMwteNmwLoS0VLRBFjWZDflquJ0NK6mNLR3c9yjOFMFPTTZFVinQ=\n=b40P\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "04171916267d2e36465c9410698e4e4910c1eb0fbf1b051cf0fc14f6fb059050fa84ec1c93ba934999b00c8cc8271a09309f4e2f0776742746731ff7f948ee26"
}