forsetifox (OP)
|
|
June 05, 2013, 09:28:22 PM |
|
Why hasn't anyone done this yet? There's a ton out right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to get the maximum amount of activity points possible, you just need to post once per day on average. Skipping days is OK as long as you maintain the average.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
MaGNeT
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1002
Waves | 3PHMaGNeTJfqFfD4xuctgKdoxLX188QM8na
|
|
June 05, 2013, 09:29:16 PM |
|
Can't.
|
|
|
|
|
dreamwatcher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 05, 2013, 10:33:19 PM |
|
From my understanding of merged mining (I am no expert), For merged mining to work, the "aux" chain has to accept the parents chains POW hash (that meets the "aux" chains difficulty target) as proof of work and thus generate a hash (difficulty does not matter) for its chain, with the parents chain hash in the first transaction as the proof of work rather then the hash of the block itself. So the "aux" chain has to be patched to act as an aux chain and the parent chain has to be patched to recognize the "aux" chains difficulty and pass any hashes that meet the "aux" chains target to the "aux" chain. So, corporation among coin developers is needed, unless one forks both chains themselves, which would be difficult to do and get enough miner support. There is also the issue of the difficulties with the new chains, if the parent chain difficulty drops below the "aux" chain difficulty, well I guess merged mining would stop until the parent chain difficulty surpassed the "aux" chain.
|
|
|
|
noel
|
|
June 05, 2013, 10:58:52 PM |
|
From my understanding of merged mining (I am no expert), For merged mining to work, the "aux" chain has to accept the parents chains POW hash (that meets the "aux" chains difficulty target) as proof of work and thus generate a hash (difficulty does not matter) for its chain, with the parents chain hash in the first transaction as the proof of work rather then the hash of the block itself. So the "aux" chain has to be patched to act as an aux chain and the parent chain has to be patched to recognize the "aux" chains difficulty and pass any hashes that meet the "aux" chains target to the "aux" chain. So, corporation among coin developers is needed, unless one forks both chains themselves, which would be difficult to do and get enough miner support. There is also the issue of the difficulties with the new chains, if the parent chain difficulty drops below the "aux" chain difficulty, well I guess merged mining would stop until the parent chain difficulty surpassed the "aux" chain. Interesting thanks for the info
|
My Bitcoin Address is 1A2WeFuxL2WuyoqNAYqKx4P2a5YieYaunp
Donate Please.
|
|
|
moody123
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
June 06, 2013, 03:35:21 AM |
|
So that explanation doesn't say it can't be done with Scrypt....
|
|
|
|
mebezac
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 06, 2013, 03:52:42 AM |
|
|
BTC: 168d57nW72Y6DidPgE88iL7vYmpQD45dYK|LTC: LLPttXuFF2uTo2CWeEwXU5CwcUcgQ4NGd3
|
|
|
moody123
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
June 06, 2013, 04:06:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
dreamwatcher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 06, 2013, 04:07:30 AM |
|
So that explanation doesn't say it can't be done with Scrypt....
It has nothing to do with sha-256 or scrypt. The issue is not if it is technically viable, of course it is. The issue is either getting coin developers to agree and work with each other to set up merged mining, or fork one or two chains separate from the official coin development and hope you get enough miners on board to keep both forks alive. Remember one chain has to accept the others chains POW as a valid POW on that chain and become the "aux" chain, and well you can kind of see where pride might get in the way. This is not to say I am against the idea, personally I think it might be helpful in strengthening the strongest of the new alt-coins. However, it is a long, tough hill to climb. With the alt-coin community split like it is today, I have a hard time seeing it happen.
|
|
|
|
moody123
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
June 06, 2013, 04:16:05 AM |
|
There's already a few coin developers willing to work together. Thanks for the info.
|
|
|
|
mebezac
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 06, 2013, 04:22:19 AM |
|
So that explanation doesn't say it can't be done with Scrypt....
It has nothing to do with sha-256 or scrypt. The issue is not if it is technically viable, of course it is. The issue is either getting coin developers to agree and work with each other to set up merged mining, or fork one or two chains separate from the official coin development and hope you get enough miners on board to keep both forks alive. Remember one chain has to accept the others chains POW as a valid POW on that chain and become the "aux" chain, and well you can kind of see where pride might get in the way. This is not to say I am against the idea, personally I think it might be helpful in strengthening the strongest of the new alt-coins. However, it is a long, tough hill to climb. With the alt-coin community split like it is today, I have a hard time seeing it happen. So what's to stop an alt-coin dev from creating a coin and then creating a second coin that you can merge mine with that first coin? That wouldn't be hurting themselves and would give people incentive to mine their coins because they could get multiples of different coins with the same hashes. Also, how far could this go? Can you only merge mine one coin on top of the original coin, or could you simultaneously merge mine multiple coins on one main coin, or have a chain of coins merge mining themselves?
|
BTC: 168d57nW72Y6DidPgE88iL7vYmpQD45dYK|LTC: LLPttXuFF2uTo2CWeEwXU5CwcUcgQ4NGd3
|
|
|
|