If an alternate chain has enough discussion to merit more than one section then someone should make a new forum for it.

heh, just noticed im in the logs, OMG IM MTV FAMOUS NOW

You're right that longpolling on NMC blocks isn't worth of doing, I'm not triggering LP on NMC block, too. However I must disagree that merged mining is adding any measurable additional load on servers when doing properly (so - without merged mining proxy) or hurt bitcoin mining in any way. Also that drop in NMC performance because of not doing LP is really mininmal, in few percents, so that's nothing what really hurt anybody.

Otherwise I agree, introducing merged mining WAS pain and I really understand that you don't want to play with it when NMC price is so low (actually it's on 30% of price in time of MM started).

Poker tournament will start in 10 minutes !

EDIT: Join us while you can

EDIT2: D'oh this guys are good at poker  

EDIT3: Congratz g2x3k you won the tournament 

   Thanks. Yea, I read VIA's info on it. I kinda figured their implentation in their existing ships would be capped by the x86 arch. What I am curious about is if their design methods are known and how usefull it would be if it could be expanded to an entire chip.?

  I had no idea jgarzik had done a sha256_via implented into the miner. That is pretty damn nifty. i'll tell you, the hardcore devs, hardware hackers and other brilliant minds around here impress me more every day!


   Cheers

Merged mining requires extra long polls when the NMC block changes.  Everytime you have a LP, you increase the odds of users getting stales during that window where the pool is generating thousands of getworks for miners.  MM more than doubles the number of long polls.  The only way around that FACT, is if some of the other MM pools are not pushing out a longpoll when the NMC block changes.  If that's the case, they're damaging NMC production without hurting BTC much (there is always some minor overhead in generating the work for a merged block vs a regular block).

Yes, it may be a poor excuse to some, but I've not hidden the fact that I'm not a supporter of merged mining in the first place.

Thanks for forcing me to try another pool

made more elsewhere for the time you were down just on pay per share of only my gpu's

no more shares worth little or nothing after 15 min
no more "invalid blocks"
no more waiting for payout
no more rejected shares because your pool can't play with phoenix
no more problems & promises

I can't say you got what I was'nt or the big miners got it
but it sure wasn't this small miner

oh one last slam to me namecoins DIDN"T payoff with the last of my bitcoins
Guess you'll have some LAME excuse for that too

I highly disagree - nothing has caused more noise than SC's centralized position.

Even Bitcoin (i think) can remove the cap if there were a majority who felt that way (up to the theoretical limit). GG didn't have a cap and there was little noise concerning GG. But under a centralized system, it's up to only a select few what to be done.

You can't have a centralized system and yet be categorized due to it's economic position - a position, which due to the centralization, can be changed at any time.

I'm a very siccessful 41 year old and I play video games as a hobby.

How is gaming any different than scrap booking, which my sister does, or volleyball, which my brother does, or knitting, which my step sister does?  Just a way to pass time.  Playing video games occupies the mind a lot more than watching TV.

And why should I do?

I'm not affiliated with rucoin project. You can ask this question to rucoin developer and project leader, alexsmf (alex@rucoin.org). I can answer only questions about my pool, or some technical questions, such as questions about setting up your own pool or questions about network. For example, I can say you, that there is no pre-mined coins. It is unlikely that users of solidcoin can say the same words.

I don't know, why there is no other RUC exchange. But there is one other pool:
http://focalway.com/

P.S. btc-e.com is multi-currency excange, not only RUC/BTC. Primarily, is the BTC/USD exchange.

I've been doing this since the very very beginning of my mining exploits, back with slush's pool in actual fact.

Every bitcoin I've mined has been spent on silver and gold coins.

Having a direct link from the pool would be a compelling reason to join back up here, but of course, actual rates and types of gold/silver coin would be an issue. Does slush *really* want to get into the bullion dealing business?

BTW - for those seeking gold, nice small bullion-grade coins are the Mexican 2 and 2.5 peso coins. At current rates, they're costing me around 40-50 BTC each, which is achievable with a smallish mining setup every week. Seeing a gold coin appear in the post every week makes this mad enterprise worth it.

Whether the constant extraction of value from the BTC economy to precious metal bullion is good for the Bitcoin economy is a question best moved to the Economy forum... (the answer is no, it's not that good for all miners to be doing this). For that reason alone, it'd probably be best for the pools to get out of the 'extract value' business and let miners pay other Bitcoin-accepting merchants for their bullion, as it increases the BTC velocity and viability of the currency. If all miners simply cash out from the pool directly, then the value of mining will crash very quickly. All sellers and no buyers - this is a very serious issue BTW.

The largest issue becomes "friction" and "trust".

If miner cash out often & quickly they don't have to trust the pool BUT then coinage overhead and shipping overhead eats into the yield.

If miners cash out infrequently & build balances they have higher yield (less lost to coinage overhead and shipping) but need to trust the pol more.

Given how some miners freak out when a $0.50 payment is one day late that seems implausible.

I stated earlier:  I wont' implement MM until it has a close to 0 effect on BTC mining, regardless of whether the tradeoff is 1% loss of BTC for a 5-7% gain in profit due to NMC.  Shadders is implementing a change to PSJ soon where the getwork creation is prepared within PSJ, rather than relying on bitcoind which has always been the bottleneck at longpoll time.  That change should reduce the performance impact of merged mining enough to be worth implementing.