|
Title: Why would a coin not be merge-mined? Post by: Bimmerhead on April 01, 2014, 01:20:13 AM Other than because it is a scam, why would a SHA-256 alt-coin not be designed to be merge-mined with bitcoin?
Title: Re: Why would a coin not be merge-mined? Post by: Bimmerhead on April 06, 2014, 02:48:33 AM Anyone?
Title: Re: Why would a coin not be merge-mined? Post by: roy7 on April 06, 2014, 02:50:45 AM I'm guessing because people want to profit from mining the new coin and if the difficulty started out in the billions, that would be difficult. ;)
Still though it's all relative. Some coins do merge mine from day one, like HunterCoin. They have a purpose for the coin (the HunterCoin game in the wallet) and so just need to keep transactions moving/etc, and instead of competing with BTC they merge mine. Makes a lot of sense. I think any sha256 coin with some sort of real purpose to exist should merge mine. Only makes sense. Title: Re: Why would a coin not be merge-mined? Post by: smoothie on April 06, 2014, 05:40:25 AM Merge-mined makes a coin at zero-cost coin. Essentially worthless bi-product.
Title: Re: Why would a coin not be merge-mined? Post by: roy7 on April 06, 2014, 05:55:12 AM Merge-mined makes a coin at zero-cost coin. Essentially worthless bi-product. Right except not all coins exist to make a profit by selling the coins. Title: Re: Why would a coin not be merge-mined? Post by: Bimmerhead on April 07, 2014, 12:13:07 PM Merge-mined makes a coin at zero-cost coin. Essentially worthless bi-product. I'm not sure why being zero-cost would make something worthless, or why adding cost would make something worth more. Isn't worth set by the intersection of supply and demand? Merge-mining doesn't increase the supply (if I understand it correctly) and should actually make the secondary coin worth more because it would be more secure than if it were mined alone. |