should we start a campaign with Zeta/XJo/Tiger/Firefly/Unbreakable/Maza/Digital/Digi/Saffron/Trinity/Duo2/Tak/A/open/tek/battle/etc and convince them to merge mine with UNO or stmh like that?
this is a good idea. |
|
|
|
if you changed rewards i'd be out - just sayin' I'd recommend: do nothing now other than look for smaller coins to auxpow with uno, test what needs be tested, see if we can raise hash considerably with merging smaller coins into uno and get the auxpow ready in case it would be needed. (exactly what has been said, i think) There's still the option of higher cap which could save us from the auxpow with btc - especially as bitcoin is in trouble and there's still that small chance of uno actually moving up to its place. Changing rewards alienates the investors. The discussion in itself is unpleasant especially in uno. The coin is known to be scarce. To un-scarce it would be no good idea at all. Do not touch these fundamentals! That's about integrity and the 300years layout. Instead of talking people could put up some buywalls  Let's care more about getting it to a decent cap. All the discussion will change a lot with that. I have a dream of a 5 or 10 bitcoin buywall a decent bit below marketlevel. One can dream  If everyone chucks in 0.5 btc at the high 6s or low 7s we would look pretty good. Not in a rush at all. |
|
|
|
|
i hope you don't discuss reward changes (isn't even a topic because it would mean fork in which case we can auxpow aswell).
Pulling sellorders can be had (from me at least - because i have almost none up).
I think we'll continue trend up nicely. Potato-trader is gone or went smaller is my impression. Afterall the market went against him...
|
|
|
|
i have an idea to drastically increase security but i can't code and nobody wants to buy it from me. I was even told by coders i can not have that idea because i am not a coder.
But i am also not willing to give it away for free so someone else get rich off my idea without giving me a slice of the pie. Here you go with the dilemma.
I decided to not release it at all and let people choke on this problem instead because not even these milionaires have spare coins to buy virgin ideas which could be groundbreaking.
Maybe get a patent later and sell that in case others can't improve on it.
Solutions are there but the programmers think they know it all and are lazy too.
It's not my problem in the end of the day.
Any solution that is built in the paradigms we operate in today will be vulnerable. You say your solution requires coding, I cannot believe you have come up with a software solution that is truly a paradigm shift. Software is vulnerable period. For me to believe your solution is interesting, you would have to convince me that when you say "coding" you mean something different than what I hear when you say coding. A great bitcoin solution would also be a great solution for Cash, is your solution a great solution for protecting my cash? dude, currently the privatekeys are there on the silvertablet to take for any malware programmer with half a brain encrypted only once with a single password that's in most cases easy to brute. There's about 1001 options to improve on that, yet nobody seems to even realize the problem. You don't need a paradigmshift to improve on the miserable security of the privatekeys and on userfriendlyness. As it is right now is a nightmare for security and noobs. And as it is right now (years without ANY improvement on it) i think it will take another decade and private companies with whole thinktanks to figure out even what's the problem. |
|
|
|
|
Uno because it beats bitcoin in the 'store of value' part and in transactionspeed. It's less volatile too which solves another big problem of BTC. Its bearmarkets are way shorter. Thanks to its fairness it can do literally anything and not even the sky is the limit.
Heads-up, has great things coming for it. Uno gets it right.
|
|
|
|
If I am ZET, why would I auxpow with Uno, instead of just going directly to BTC?
It's the same amount of work for me, and I have to fork. If I am a ZET dev, what advantage would I perceive choosing Uno instead of Bitcoin?
you'd be safe with uno even in the event of bitcoin failing maybe? And maybe also to do the small miners some good? Building that ecosystem with the smaller coins is certainly more diplomacy and maybe uno will later be more interesting than bitcoin to them. Next few months will reveal what the deal is with bitcoin. I'd be for building both those circles. We can work on both simultaneously, right? If no established coin wants to auxpow with uno we can still take on abandoned coins or launch the own ones to build the blue circle. Maybe uno is soon much more interesting to auxpow with for the other devs? Certainly possible. |
|
|
|
|
building both circles will give us maximum security and also provide for good decentralisation.
green: can be had easier (no big diplomacy) , provides A LOT of hashpower BUT could become obsolete
blue: is more diplomacy and longer process but also good to have that environment and will make the small miners happy and devs can use it for training. In case bitcoin bites the dust it is an important part.
Would love to in fact see that mining-ecosystem emerge. Will put uno ahead of pretty much all coins imo. I think once this mining-system is a reality uno should be a huge coin and unchallenged #1 coin for storing value.
I see a bright future coming with this.
|
|
|
|
By creating the 'code' to do the blue circle AuxPow w/ UNO you also have created the 'code' to do the green circle AuxPow w/ BTC -just a slight modification is needed- 1. UNO devs get the street credit 2. We can test it for a couple of months in the blue circle. 3. UNO must fork to enter the green circle. if you say it needs more coding and testing because it's not really out there and the devs need to practice some, what you're saying makes sense of course. We'll need the other coins on board with it. So build blue circle for couple of months, see how it works out and implement green circle later if it's still a topic and bitcoin still relevant. I think at this point it's up to the devs and the other coin communities. Maybe we should let our devs decide on it if they feel they want to test on other coins first or if the tech is good enough to implement in uno already (i have no insight there). |
|
|
|
@BN 300k$ for one coin would probably make me loose my mind  It's beyond of what i could imagine right now. But i like your thinking. It's possible for sure. Uno would need to go viral for that or draw in very big investors. You never know. It's all possible with the internet certainly. @gustavYes that's the idea. Let's help the small-time miners keep in the game. Spread the wealth some, keep SHA256 from going monolithic. Again. but ... I think getting to the green circle means FORK uno ... I still think is fine around UNO year 3. but ... what if we topple BTC in the next 2 years ? Then no fork and we are still helping the little coins. it is possible this will also depend, like FK says, if there will be any takers and other coins implement it. If no other smaller sha-coins want to implement that we'll have not so many choices left. Let's try to get the other coins to auxpow with uno. On the other hand: if we toppled bitcoin it would be no disadvantage to be auxpow with it because uno can still be mined seperately. Say bitcoin goes to zero and uno goes to 300k$ a coin miners will just mine uno directly - no problem there. Right now hash is not so high. I wouldn't want to wait for another two years tbh with taking some action there. If bitcoin fails and we implemented auxpow with it, it won't affect uno as we are still building the blue circle. auxpow with bitcoin can be had almost instantly, will raise security and price. Building the blue circle can still be done but is also mainly depending on the other coins to implement it and likely not in our direct control. In case bitcoin fails the blue circle is what everyone goes forward to. So why not actually build it all at once? -> implement auxpow with btc and still look for other coins to auxpow with uno. Just like the last graphic shows. |
|
|
|
new concept:  does this make sense? With this kind of concept Uno can still be a place for miners with weaker hardware too. Just an idea Is this any good? |
|
|
|
And if Unobtanium 'nearly' has a sustainable mining rate, then it still doesn't have a sustainable mining rate.
True. If UNO goes to $1000/coin tomorrow then we must pay the miners, the POW network, $15,000/day. I think that is a bit much. But we will only have to pay $4000/day around November. BTC @ $1000/coin must pay $3.6M/day. This makes UNO 900x more efficient at securing value on a SHA256 network. Does this sound appealing? And it gets more and more efficient as we approach year 2020. Had to smile about that one. If uno goes to 1000$ a coin there will be enough demand for 15k$ a day to cover that. The fast halvings provide short bearmarkets. So let's say uno does suddenly rise like crazy to 1000$ a coin: that increased demand will pretty much cover the inflationrate and soon it halves again to 7,5 coins a day which is totally sustainable. Uno right now at the same marketcap like bitcoin would take 300k$ per day to run it whereas bitcoin uses more than 1Million$ in funds every day to run. Uno is already 3 to 4 times more efficient than bitcoin. With the next halving that efficency will double to 6 to 8 times more efficient than bitcoin. So Uno is already much more efficient than bitcoin and will be more so as time passes. calculation: hypothetical cap of 4 billion (bitcoins cap right now) Bitcoin 3600 coin/day inflation at 300$ per coin uses around 1million USD in funds every day Uno at 4 billion marketcap would be 20000$ for one coin and would use right now around 300k$ to run at bitcoins marketcap with that daily inflation of only 15 coins/day - halving about twice a year, so that cost would come down further. Uno is definately more efficient than bitcoin and thus more appealing to store value or invest in it. Bitcoin is good in turning money into heat but not as store of value.  |
|
|
|
-> If I'm understanding correctly, we like UNO to have a sustainable mining rate with predictable/gradual increases in hash (mining rate) pairing nicely with increase in value (affecting cost of mining) and PoW requirements (difficulty of mining). Sudden jumps in hash rates resulting from "as many coins as possible" merging with UNO could have a negative effect on UNO's efficiency as it demands more daily overhead, ultimately hurting our growth, price, security (attacks if they ever ramp up from <5MHash scrypt targets), agility, etc.
*Still learning here so the above may be baloney.
i don't think it'll hurt the growth (more like the opposite) because more hashrate on a coin does not mean more coins will be produced. The daily inflation of 15Uno/day will remain the same. Mining will become more difficult for the individual miners so the daily inflation does not change because of higher or lower hashrate for all i know. |
|
|
|
as long as counterparty does not bloat the uno chain i have nothing against them. It could indeed be a good idea for them to take over or launch their own coin and merge mine that one with Uno. Why not? But that's up to them. The general idea is a good one, BN. But don't let them bloat the chain of uno! --- right now i think merge mine as many coins as possible with uno is likely a good approach. Especially the good ones. Miners like it, uno doesn't need a change, get more hash and it doesn't bloat the uno chain. Are there any downsides to that? |
|
|
|
hello Mazacoin community! An idea for you to discuss: How about implementing auxpow for merged mining with unobtanium into mazacoin for better profit for the miners and stronger networks of both coins? We are currently discussing various merged mining solution at the uno-thread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=527500.0) In case Maza wants to implement auxpow and merge into the uno-network i believe it could be done and would likely benefit both coins as both coins' security would rise. Looking forward to your comments. You can also say hi at the uno thread if you want. best Regards |
|
|
|
hello DEM-community. Does DEM want to implement auxpow for merge mining with Unobtanium for more profitable mining (and better networks) of both coins? Discussion is ongoing in the Uno-thread too. Let us know what you think. Regards https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=527500.5040contact me if that happens, i can add a pool for merged mining instantly good to know. Thanks. We'll let you know! |
|
|
|
|
For merging with uno zetacoin would need to implement auxpow on their side me thinks.
Will zeta implement the auxpower?
Pretty sure it would raise its price too since it would be more secure than it is right now.
Stuff for discussion for the zeta-people (i personally hold stake in both coins so count myself as part of both communities)
|
|
|
|
hello DEM-community. Does DEM want to implement auxpow for merge mining with Unobtanium for more profitable mining (and better networks) of both coins? Discussion is ongoing in the Uno-thread too. Let us know what you think. Regards https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=527500.5040 |
|
|
|
"option 3 would be: auxpow other coins with uno in which case uno remains unchanged." Yes. That's it. "so you say: 'wait a little and do nothing' , right?" No. We have to be at the fore front of SHA256 Aux creation, do we fork Uno? Later, maybe, but much later. The goal is getting a group of SHA Alts co-mining UNO. This means code plus getting pool Ops to create xyzCoin/UNO.aux pools. [other issue] Zeta merging into UNO makes sense to me. Also ... Au, aCoin, and any other SHA that is entering the finally distribution stage ... merging into the UNO family is a good idea. Uno must be both resourceful with tech help and lucrative for mining/miners. So this is a 1-2 combo punch. [and a 3rd punch Aux BTC if needed] so we're actually on the same page. Getting zeta merging into uno will be a little harder though possibly. They want it the other way around. It would make sense for them but they are probably a bit too lofty still for that. In case zeta doesn't want to merge with uno we'd porbably face competition from them as they would want to convince other coins to merge with them - the same coins we would target too. But won't be a big deal. So let's go out and ask the other coins. |
|
|
|
option 1 -uno auxpow with btc and other coins auxpow with uno << that's the general idea
1. setup other coins auxpow with uno ("an plugin" that they implement into their code)
2. much later (and only if needed) uno forks 2 get auxpow from btc network
3. if it is UNO that forks to have the Auxpow-like-Via then a BTC pool can mine UNO too
this sounds pretty good to me. So our mission is now to convince as many good smaller sha-coins as possible to auxpow with uno, right? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
