BTC/NMC merged mining available for testing

[marcus_of_augustus]

This sounds too good to be true.

Where's the disadvantages list?

[markm]

Does this cause some kind of delay in processing blocks of child chains?

If for example my combined hashing power manages to snag me a block on the parent chain once a month or so on average, so that I am able to insert some kind of merkle or hash into the parent chain, how will my child chain proceed during the month or so until its miners succeed in inserting another block into the parent chain?

-MarkM-

[nodemaster]

This sounds too good to be true.

Where's the disadvantages list?

For bitcoin users and miners in general it's a low hanging fruit BUT:

* For namecoin users this means a major change, as the blockains won't be compatible between the version below block 24k and above 24k.
* This all is completely untested. Okay, not completely. But it is in review and testing stage.
* A further daemon means more overhead for pool operators. However if merged mining gets common it might make sense to integrate it into pushpoold
* The pool operator has to administrate (at least) two blockchains.
* As long as the bitcoind parent patch is not in stock bitcoind pool operators have to patch bitcoind
* Pool operators who want to use merged mining need to adapt it to their pool frontend
* In theory a miner doesn't know if his pool does merged mining. Thus a pool operator could take all the coins from aux chain for himself. But I guess if you are not trusting your pool operator you are mining solo anyway.

[marcus_of_augustus]

What about the economic performance disadvantages of the respective currencies?

Won't this devalue bitcoin?

[nodemaster]

What about the economic performance disadvantages of the respective currencies?

Won't this devalue bitcoin?

Good question! Please Discuss! (We had a similar discussion on dot-bit.org forum. But I feel we need much more opinions on this issue.)

[smoothie]

There are many unanswered questions to these changes at block 24,000. These concerns need to be answered soon and get attention widely on the major discussion threads of the bitcoin forum.

I would hate to see this merged mining go south and people who had namecoins not be able to use their namecoins because of a possible screw up on the block chain with the merged mining development/implementation.

[markm]

There are plenty of blockchains waiting in the wings, as soon as aux blockchain mining is worked out and debugged and understood there will probably be quite a few chains looking to be aux chains.

So please help them understand!

-MarkM-

[marcus_of_augustus]

There are plenty of blockchains waiting in the wings, as soon as aux blockchain mining is worked out and debugged and understood there will probably be quite a few chains looking to be aux chains.

So please help them understand!

-MarkM-

You seem to be in the know ... care to share your wisdom?

[tysat]

There are plenty of blockchains waiting in the wings, as soon as aux blockchain mining is worked out and debugged and understood there will probably be quite a few chains looking to be aux chains.

So please help them understand!

-MarkM-

You seem to be in the know ... care to share your wisdom?

I'm curious about the other blockchains hiding out there as well...

Definitely like the idea of doing it with namecoin, would help get it more mainstream I think.

[jollyjim]

What about the economic performance disadvantages of the respective currencies?

Won't this devalue bitcoin?

I think this would devalue bitcoins, as well as any other coins that get added.  Hundreds of new coins will be added at no extra cost (as markm already confirmed).  All of those coins will be at jeopardy of losing value and might even get rejected.

This would be akin to everyone being able to print their own money and trying to get others to accept it.  With a few select currencies, it's easy for them to succeed.  With thousands to choose from, people aren't going to accept every type of payment someone thinks up.

As good as it might sound, especially for miners, this will probably lead to demise of many currencies, many of which probably didn't have a chance anyway but some that might have had a chance will die off as well.

Isn't the allure of BTC and other currencies like NMC the idea that an entity isn't able to print money whenever they feel like it?  This would be the same thing.  Miners would be mining mainly for BTC while in the process, printing extra money that will end up having a nearly constant exchange rate between BTC, NMC, etc, thus increasing the money supply and devaluing all of those currencies.  People are worried about the US having to print money to stay afloat because it could eventually lead to hyperinflation making the USD worthless.  All the coins following this path will also have that same risk.  People want to adopt BTC because they believe that can't happen with the currency.

For all of our sake, I hope everyone will reject this idea and it won't make it into any official branch, or even unofficial ones.

[tysat]

What about the economic performance disadvantages of the respective currencies?

Won't this devalue bitcoin?

I think this would devalue bitcoins, as well as any other coins that get added.  Hundreds of new coins will be added at no extra cost (as markm already confirmed).  All of those coins will be at jeopardy of losing value and might even get rejected.

This would be akin to everyone being able to print their own money and trying to get others to accept it.  With a few select currencies, it's easy for them to succeed.  With thousands to choose from, people aren't going to accept every type of payment someone thinks up.

As good as it might sound, especially for miners, this will probably lead to demise of many currencies, many of which probably didn't have a chance anyway but some that might have had a chance will die off as well.

Isn't the allure of BTC and other currencies like NMC the idea that an entity isn't able to print money whenever they feel like it?  This would be the same thing.  Miners would be mining mainly for BTC while in the process, printing extra money that will end up having a nearly constant exchange rate between BTC, NMC, etc, thus increasing the money supply and devaluing all of those currencies.  People are worried about the US having to print money to stay afloat because it could eventually lead to hyperinflation making the USD worthless.  All the coins following this path will also have that same risk.  People want to adopt BTC because they believe that can't happen with the currency.

For all of our sake, I hope everyone will reject this idea and it won't make it into any official branch, or even unofficial ones.

NMC does have a purpose though... unless other blockchains with a purpose were started, why would anyone mine them?

[jollyjim]

NMC does have a purpose though... unless other blockchains with a purpose were started, why would anyone mine them?

It's not just about purpose.  As a real world example, take the USD.  It serves a purpose and has been the reserve currency for over half a century.  If they start printing a lot more money, would you rather someone paid you in USD or a currency that doesn't need to go through major devaluation like AUD?

Also, not everyone believes in NMC.  Anyone can come up with blockchains with a "purpose" that a niche will enjoy mining in.  When mining in 100 currencies costs the same as mining in 1, people won't care that they're mining in a currency that's used to pay for videos of someone torturing insects.  If you're not for that cause, someone else will be and you not mining in a pool of only 20 currencies with ideas you believe in will cause you to earn much less than the people that are mining in all of them.

Remember once NMC and BTC are both mined at the same time, the exchange rate between the two will eventually be fairly constant.  It'd be like the BTC was considered as a USD $20 and an NMC a USD $1, effectively increasing the money supply of the base currency (BTC) and devaluing both.

[JohnDoe]

You seem to be in the know ... care to share your wisdom?

I'm curious about the other blockchains hiding out there as well...

Definitely like the idea of doing it with namecoin, would help get it more mainstream I think.

Probably talking about Multicoin, Groupcoin, Goldcoin and Stablecoin. Personally I don't see much value in Groupcoin, Goldcoin and Stablecoin. Can't comment in Multicoin because I don't get it.

What about the economic performance disadvantages of the respective currencies?

Won't this devalue bitcoin?

I think this would devalue bitcoins, as well as any other coins that get added.  Hundreds of new coins will be added at no extra cost (as markm already confirmed).  All of those coins will be at jeopardy of losing value and might even get rejected.

The cost of mining BTC will stay equal. The only way that merged mining would be able to devalue BTC is if people start caring more about NMC (or any other currency) and they sell their BTC for it.

If only the POOL Operators need to change something for merge mining, and the miner doesn't need to change anything -- to merge mine in a pool then, my hashing could be used for hacking/cracking/decrypting by the pool, without my knowledge?

They wouldn't be able to do that because decrypting/cracking passwords requires a different type of computation, so if they added something like that to their software the hashing speed of miners would noticeably diminish.

[nodemaster]

I'd agree to the devaluation arguments if (and only then), when we could mine for new coins endlessley. But this is not the case. After for example all bitcoins have been mined merged mining assures, that there are still many people mining for perhaps another blockchain making sure the bitcoin blockchain is still strong.

Most people who shout "devaluation" seems to think the value for BTC emerges from the 50 coins generated for one block. If this is true, BTC will be doomed and useless as soon as the last bounty block is generated. Perhaps earlier ( when the bounty decreases first time)

[JohnDoe]

To me, saying that merged mining will devalue bitcoins is akin to saying that printing more yens will devalue the dollar.

[jollyjim]

The cost of mining BTC will stay equal. The only way that merged mining would be able to devalue BTC is if people start caring more about NMC (or any other currency) and they sell their BTC for it.

I never said it wouldn't stay equal.  However, by merging all these other ones into it, you effectively could get 100 different other ones at no cost to you.  Why would the average person only want to mine in one currency when they can do it in 100 different ones?  By not doing so, you're effectively getting only 70% (assuming BTC are worth 70% of the worth of all 100 currencies) compared to what other people are getting.  People wouldn't need to necessarily care about currency X as long as the currency still has a trade value for something with a more widespread purpose (BTC).

However, let's assume that people don't care about all these other currencies.  What's going to happen is there will be massive inflation in those currencies due to merged BTC mining and then people will start rejecting those currencies, causing them to fail.

To me, saying that merged mining will devalue bitcoins is akin to saying that printing more yens will devalue the dollar.

No, this is akin to saying instead of just being able to print more yen, you'd be able to print JPY, USD, CAD, AUD, ZWD, etc at the same cost in resources.  People that have JPY, USD, CAD, or AUD will be in jeopardy of devaluation and eventually a failed currency.  People with ZWD won't care as much because it's basically worthless and failed already.  Because all these other currencies are being printed at the same time as JPY, people can effectively use the other currencies as substitutes for JPY, causing effectively an increase in the JPY money supply and driving its worth down along with all the other printed currencies.

I'd agree to the devaluation arguments if (and only then), when we could mine for new coins endlessley. But this is not the case. After for example all bitcoins have been mined merged mining assures, that there are still many people mining for perhaps another blockchain making sure the bitcoin blockchain is still strong.

This is effectively what can happen.  Instead of being limited by the 21m coins, you're creating these other pseudo-BTC.  With enough time and as long as they haven't failed, there will be a tightly knit relationship between those currencies.  Also, BTC won't reach its limit for another 100 years, and that's plenty of time for it to fail.

I'm not saying this will happen but I think it's a very likely scenario.  However, I'm fairly certain that what will come out of this will be a lot of failed currencies that might have had a chance to exist if they weren't merged.  I don't think there has ever been a time when you could print 100 different currencies by only printing 1 so there isn't anything directly related to compare against.  I see pseudo-BTC will come out of it (thus, leading to devaluation and a higher risk of failure) while you and JohnDoe don't.  What's certain though is that all currencies that inflate beyond sustainability end up in failure.  IMO, there is a lot more downside to merged mining than upside.

[TeraPool]

Can somebody please explain this sentence to me more thoroughly please? (From the wiki http://dot-bit.org/MergedMining#Goal_of_this_namecoin_change)

For namecoin users this means a major change, as the blockains won't be compatible between the version below block 24k and above 24k.

So does that mean that any namecoin mined before block 24,000 will be invalid?

Or what exactly does that sentence mean?

Will I still be able to "spend", "use", "buy" and "sell" the namecoins I mined before block 24,000?

[JohnDoe]

Can somebody please explain this sentence to me more thoroughly please? (From the wiki http://dot-bit.org/MergedMining#Goal_of_this_namecoin_change)

For namecoin users this means a major change, as the blockains won't be compatible between the version below block 24k and above 24k.

So does that mean that any namecoin mined before block 24,000 will be invalid?

Or what exactly does that sentence mean?

Will I still be able to "spend", "use", "buy" and "sell" the namecoins I mined before block 24,000?

It only means that after block 24,000 people who haven't upgraded their clients won't be able to generate blocks because they'll be rejected by the majority (assuming the majority has updated). NMC mined before block 24,000 will be valid. Also block 24,000 is only a tentative date, it's not set in stone yet.

@jollyjim: Sorry, I just don't see any logic in your argumentation. Guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

[Mike Hearn]

Merged mining is an implementation of the design outlined in this document I wrote some time ago:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_Chains

You can learn more about how it works there.

[nodemaster]

Merged mining is an implementation of the design outlined in this document I wrote some time ago:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_Chains

You can learn more about how it works there.

Whoaaa! Didn't know that. This document is awesome. This will help explaining it a lot. And I was reading source code to understand it  This is so much better! BTW Thank you for making this possible.