Merged Mined Coins Association MeMiCA

[mrbodz]

I'll attempt a IXC Port of it soon.

Ahmed

[p3yot33at3r]

This is an excellent idea!

I've recently started mining p2pool merged with most of the coins listed in OP, but there seems to be some confusion about the ports required to do so, as I just mentioned in the p2pool thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg11471687#msg11471687

Maybe if the correct ports for each coin could be listed in the OP? This would save much confusion to noobs like me   Particularly CLC & XGG - I can't find any info relating to those ports......

Huntercoin is also merge mined with Bitcoin (as well as scrypt coins, it uses two PoW algorithms, in addition to disbursing coins to players in the game).

Huntercoin made that claim, however actually merging it resulted in no blocks found, which I reported at the time (long ago) and have not even seen them acknowledge the problem let alone announce they fixed it.

So as of last I checked their purported SHA256 merging does not apparently work.

Maybe their scrypt merging works though, I do not know.

-MarkM-

I found HUC to be working fine, I've already found a few blocks with p2pool merged  

[p3yot33at3r]

iXcoin

Bitcoin's operating port 8333 is changed to 8337 with Ixcoin.

Bitcoin's RPC server port 8332 is defaulted to 8338 in Ixcoin.

Ixcoin is no longer mined though right?

[mrbodz]

it is

[crackfoo]

anyone have any nodes for ixc?

[crackfoo]

anyone have any nodes for ixc?

https://www.ixcoin.co/?page_id=21

already have all those....

[crackfoo]

anyone have any nodes for ixc?

https://www.ixcoin.co/?page_id=21

already have all those....

Can these ones be useful?

212.74.236.210
82.200.205.30
118.244.207.8
188.138.106.130
64.156.193.100
116.14.28.167
188.165.82.228
81.193.232.16

That seemed to do the trick.

    "version" : 80600,
    "protocolversion" : 70001,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 263078,
    "timeoffset" : -4,
    "connections" : 13,
    "proxy" : "",
    "difficulty" : 10660257161.44938087,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1433299834,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
    "errors" : ""

[p3yot33at3r]

I finally managed to compile GeistGeld, for the hell of it, does anyone have any active nodes for it?

There is also Fusioncoin that can be merge mined - it's a bit dead, but not as dead as others mentioned in the OP & the blockchain is still active:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=512149.0

Crowncoin was also looking for a dev to help implement merge mining, but the dev seems to have gone AWOL, although the website & blockchain seem healthy & trading can still be done on C-CEX:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=815487.0

It would be nice to see a dev step in & maybe resurrect these coins with updated code, with BTC difficulty going up & price staying low, merge mining is an excellent way to increase ones mining earnings & help stabilise other less used crypto coins.

[JohnnyBTCSeed]

You're the rider

The bicycle is the economy

Bitcoin is the big gear



and here are all of the side chains


What the chain in the middle is, IS still up for debate

[photon_coin]

interesting thread

[p3yot33at3r]

Heads up:

Just thought I'd give you merge miners a little heads up about another coin that's merge mined with BTC - worldleadcurrency (WLC)



Port: 45889
RPCPort: 45888

The daemon runs great on 64bit Xubuntu, it has a very low overhead, but you'll need a couple of extra dependencies to compile it from git:

https://github.com/WorldLeadCurrency/WLC/blob/master/doc/build-unix.md

Not tried the QT wallet yet though.

Coin thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=791398.0

Every little helps.........merge mine on! 

So, including BTC, I'm currently merge mining 11 coins 

BTC, DVC, FSC, HUC, I0C, IXC, NMC, GRP, UNO, CLC & WLC........any more for any more?

I never did get XGG to work properly with p2pool, memory usage went crazy, so if anyone has any hints/fixes - I'd like to make it 12........

Fun, fun, fun.

[phelix]

So, including BTC, I'm currently merge mining 11 coins 

BTC, DVC, FSC, HUC, I0C, IXC, NMC, GRP, UNO, CLC & WLC........any more for any more?

Can you give a ball park percentage how much this increases your profit?

Is there a good tutorial on how to set up merge mining?

[p3yot33at3r]

So, including BTC, I'm currently merge mining 11 coins 

BTC, DVC, FSC, HUC, I0C, IXC, NMC, GRP, UNO, CLC & WLC........any more for any more?

Can you give a ball park percentage how much this increases your profit?

Is there a good tutorial on how to set up merge mining?

Hi phelix,

No......

TBH I've never really seriously looked into the profitability side of it, for me it's all about bettering my Linux skills (or lack of  ) while helping give stability & security to a few altcoins that may one day be "worth" mining - a hobby. After all, if it's purely profit people are after then home mining is the wrong game to be in atm...... I just find it very interesting & want to promote crypto as much as possible, I believe it's the future in one form or another & despise the current "system".

Regarding the tutorial, I was working on an updated guide for noobs myself, but put it on hold due to the current network attack & problems with a couple of merge mined clients (HUC & XGG) - I didn't want people to think they had done something wrong when they hadn't, so decided to wait until those issues are fixed before publishing it.

I was also thinking of posting a comprehensive list of all merge mined SHA256 coins with updated info, coin links & repos etc for p2pool users to use - but have had to postpone this for the same reasons. although it would be preferable if the OP would do that in this thread I think......?

I see p2pool merge mining as the only way to stop the rot of large miner farm centralization & it's inherent problems, especially with all the scam pools popping up all over the place - so just want to increase new crypto miners awareness. Profit is not my driving force, thank goodness. I'm happy if I break even! 

[domob]

Bitcoin is currently working on ideas to use more bits of a block's version field for activation of soft forks.  In particular, they want to use individual bits of the version integer to signal particular soft forks currently progressing.  This may become a problem with the current merge-mining protocol, which reserves bit 8 and all bits starting at 16 of the version itself.  I think it would be a great advantage to preserve compatibility with Bitcoin, and allow using their code without too many specific changes.

Thus, I would like to encourage discussion about a potential change to the merge-mining protocol that frees all 32 bits of the version field of blocks.  A possible solution is the following:  Require that every block has an auxpow structure following the first 80 bytes of the block header.  (Currently this is only the case for blocks that indicate with their version that they are merge-mined.)  Additionally, the auxpow structure itself is changed to include the extra information (merge-mined flag and chain ID) that is currently in the version.  E. g., even if a block is not merge-mined, it would contain some additional data following the block header that indicates that the block is not merge-mined.

Thoughts?

[p3yot33at3r]

For what it's worth, I think anything that makes merge mine-able altcoins more compatible with Bitcoin & easier to integrate has got to be a good thing - it would certainly reduce the hours spent searching through code to see if it was capable of being merge mined, there seems to be a lack of information on many altcoin threads as to weather they are or not.

You're doing some great work btw domob - kudos! 

[phelix]

Bitcoin is currently working on ideas to use more bits of a block's version field for activation of soft forks.  In particular, they want to use individual bits of the version integer to signal particular soft forks currently progressing.  This may become a problem with the current merge-mining protocol, which reserves bit 8 and all bits starting at 16 of the version itself.  I think it would be a great advantage to preserve compatibility with Bitcoin, and allow using their code without too many specific changes.

Thus, I would like to encourage discussion about a potential change to the merge-mining protocol that frees all 32 bits of the version field of blocks.  A possible solution is the following:  Require that every block has an auxpow structure following the first 80 bytes of the block header.  (Currently this is only the case for blocks that indicate with their version that they are merge-mined.)  Additionally, the auxpow structure itself is changed to include the extra information (merge-mined flag and chain ID) that is currently in the version.  E. g., even if a block is not merge-mined, it would contain some additional data following the block header that indicates that the block is not merge-mined.

Thoughts?

As long as there is no particular downside maybe we could stuff it into the next hardfork


@p3yot33at3r: +1 to p2pool

[p3yot33at3r]

@p3yot33at3r: +1 to p2pool

Thanks phelix 

My thoughts exactly.

[crowncoin_knight]

Any dev who would be interested for the job? Please get back to me!

crowncoin.org

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=815487.0

[p3yot33at3r]

Any dev who would be interested for the job? Please get back to me!

crowncoin.org

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=815487.0

Hi crowncoin_knight,

Good to see you here - did you hear back from the dev who emailed you? It's beyond my capabilities I'm afraid, but maybe if you offered a bounty of some kind? 

[markm]

It would be nice to implement merged mining in Cubits3, especially nice given that we so far have no hybrid PoW/PoS coins in the merged SHA256 family.

-MarkM-