[Bitcoin-development] Merge mining
Merge mining lets Bitcoin miners support or attack an alt-coin without any additional cost for their proof-of-work. Since bitcoin miners have to install software to build and claim blocks in the alt-coin, the percentage of bitcoin hashing power reflected toward the alt-coin will follow some adoption curve based on convincing bitcoin miners to opt-in. Depending on where you are on that adoption curve or 'participation rate', you need [a lot] less than 51% of of total Bitcoin hashing power in order to 51% attack the alt-coin. But there's so much 'dry powder' out there (GPUs), I wonder if *not* supporting merge-mining is any better? At least the attacker has to do some unique PoW, so you hope it's costing them something. Relatively large amounts of hashing can definitely be deployed on target with zero startup cost, and perhaps very little runtime cost (botnets). I think the absolute cost of the PoW is very likely *not* the determining factor in preventing a 51% attack on all but one or two blockchains currently in existence. Do I understand correctly, the question here is mostly a matter a game theory? On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 17:14:05 -0800, Luke-Jr wrote: > On Monday, December 30, 2013 11:22:25 PM Peter Todd wrote: >> that you are using merge-mining is a red-flag because without majority, >> or >> at least near-majority, hashing power an attacker can 51% attack your >> altcoin at negligible cost by re-using existing hashing power. > > I strongly disagree on this isolated point. Using the same logic, > Bitcoin is > vulnerable to an attacker at negligible cost by re-using existing hashing > power from mining Namecoin. Any non-scam altcoin is pretty safe using > merged > mining, since any would-be attacker is going to have it in their > interests to > invest in the altcoin instead of attacking it. It's only the scam ones > that want to pump & dump with no improvements, that are really at risk > here. > > The rational decision for a non-scam altcoin, is to take advantage of > merged mining to get as much security as possible. There are also some > possible > tricks to get the full security of the bitcoin miners even when not all > participate in your altcoin (but this area probably needs some studying > to get right). > > Luke > -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Merge mining
> But there's so much 'dry powder' out there (GPUs), I wonder if *not* > supporting merge-mining is any better? At least the attacker has to do > some unique PoW, so you hope it's costing them something. With lots of people having access to 100TH+ there's not really much 'cost' to doing a 51% attack on an alt-coin beyond a short-term diversion away from 'profitable' mining. At least by supporting merged mining, more miners are likely to 'support' multiple coin types, thus making a 51% attack from an individual/group less straightforward. >> The rational decision for a non-scam altcoin, is to take advantage of >> merged mining to get as much security as possible. Exactly. Rob -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Merge mining
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. On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 2:38 AM, wrote: > > But there's so much 'dry powder' out there (GPUs), I wonder if *not* > > supporting merge-mining is any better? At least the attacker has to do > > some unique PoW, so you hope it's costing them something. > > With lots of people having access to 100TH+ there's not really much > 'cost' to doing a 51% attack on an alt-coin beyond a short-term > diversion away from 'profitable' mining. > > At least by supporting merged mining, more miners are likely to > 'support' multiple coin types, thus making a 51% attack from an > individual/group less straightforward. > > >> The rational decision for a non-scam altcoin, is to take advantage of > >> merged mining to get as much security as possible. > > Exactly. > > Rob > > > -- > Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT > organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance > affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your > Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics > Pro! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > ___ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Merge mining
On 1/4/14, David Vorick 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... -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Merge mining
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 Timón wrote: > On 1/4/14, David Vorick 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... > -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Merge mining
On 1/4/14, David Vorick wrote: > It's meant to be in favor of merge mining. > > Dogecoin uses scrypt, which is a very popular algorithm. Also, MS windows is a very popular operative system. That's a fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum > 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. Wait, wait, is Dogecoin merge-mineable with litecoin? It could be if its developers wanted to, but I highly doubt it. Precisely because of the myths spread against merged mining. > By attacking > dogecoin successfully, you'll cast doubt on the entire cryptocurrency > ecosystem and hurt yourself in the process. You shouldn't make such assumptions about the interests of a potential attacker. For example, even being of the "cryptocurrency ecosystem" I could consider that their slogans and videos are confusing newcomers and they're really harming the general image of p2p currencies by associating them with mad speculation and pump and dump schemes. Being heavily involved in this "ecosystem", I would be very happy if dogecoin disappeared tomorrow. Personally I've never mined anything, but if I had the resources I would actually consider such an attack. Again, I think we're getting off-topic with perrocoin. It hardly has anything to do with MM. > On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Jorge Timón wrote: > >> On 1/4/14, David Vorick 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... >> > -- Jorge Timón http://freico.in/ -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
