|
terrytibbs
|
 |
October 30, 2011, 12:09:27 AM |
|
he's still in #tenebrix so i'm sure he's still working on the laundry and messaging service.
As far as I know ArtForz is doing all the heavy lifting. Lolcust is just a graphic designer, by his own definition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bulanula
|
|
October 30, 2011, 08:46:40 PM |
|
Any plans in implementing scrypt merged mining (probably with Litecoin as parent)?
IMHO we need to merge mine FBX with TBX and LTC as soon as humanly possible. |
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
October 30, 2011, 08:48:40 PM |
|
Any plans in implementing scrypt merged mining (probably with Litecoin as parent)?
IMHO we need to merge mine FBX with TBX and LTC as soon as humanly possible. Why? What advantages do FBX and TBX offer over LTC? |
|
|
|
|
|
bulanula
|
|
October 30, 2011, 09:22:41 PM |
|
Any plans in implementing scrypt merged mining (probably with Litecoin as parent)?
IMHO we need to merge mine FBX with TBX and LTC as soon as humanly possible. Why? What advantages do FBX and TBX offer over LTC? Makes more profit for miners if you MM all these three coins ? |
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
October 30, 2011, 09:30:46 PM |
|
Any plans in implementing scrypt merged mining (probably with Litecoin as parent)?
IMHO we need to merge mine FBX with TBX and LTC as soon as humanly possible. Why? What advantages do FBX and TBX offer over LTC? Makes more profit for miners if you MM all these three coins ? Not in the long run. Short term profits are hardly a good reason to implement merged mining. The reason for merged namecoin was to improve the security of the namecoin DNS system by raising hashing power making a 51% attack punitively expensive. |
|
|
|
|
|
bulanula
|
|
October 30, 2011, 09:35:37 PM
Last edit: October 30, 2011, 09:52:49 PM by bulanula |
|
Not in the long run. Short term profits are hardly a good reason to implement merged mining. The reason for merged namecoin was to improve the security of the namecoin DNS system by raising hashing power making a 51% attack punitively expensive. So are you saying that over time NMC price will drop to almost nothing ? I don't quite get it, sorry. |
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
October 30, 2011, 09:48:05 PM |
|
Not in the long run. Short term profits are hardly a good reason to implement merged mining. The reason for merged namecoin was to improve the security of the namecoin DNS system by raising hashing power making a 51% attack punitively expensive.
It's still in the best interest of Litecoin to have merged mining for the increased hashing power. So are you saying that over time NMC price will drop to almost nothing ? I don't quite get it, sorry. No I am saying in time the COMBINED value of BTC & NMC will be no more than BTC alone prior to Merged Mining. Economic theory tells us that as supply increases for a fixed amount of demand price declines. This price decline won't only be seen on NMC side but as the combine revenue a miner gets. More practical example. When merged mining started it offers a 140% "bonus". Thus merge mining earned you 2.4BTC vs 1 BTC normal mining for same hashing power. By next difficulty change that was down to 35% "bonus". It is now a 16% bonus. On Oct 4 it will be down to a ~9% bonus. In time the value of merged mining will be insignificantly higher than "normal" BTC mining prior to the merge. You can't get something for nothing. The markets will adjust to increased supply without increased demand. It can do that without having NMC price go to zero. |
|
|
|
|
|
iopq
|
|
November 01, 2011, 12:27:01 PM |
|
Not in the long run. Short term profits are hardly a good reason to implement merged mining. The reason for merged namecoin was to improve the security of the namecoin DNS system by raising hashing power making a 51% attack punitively expensive.
It's still in the best interest of Litecoin to have merged mining for the increased hashing power. So are you saying that over time NMC price will drop to almost nothing ? I don't quite get it, sorry. No I am saying in time the COMBINED value of BTC & NMC will be no more than BTC alone prior to Merged Mining. Economic theory tells us that as supply increases for a fixed amount of demand price declines. This price decline won't only be seen on NMC side but as the combine revenue a miner gets. More practical example. When merged mining started it offers a 140% "bonus". Thus merge mining earned you 2.4BTC vs 1 BTC normal mining for same hashing power. By next difficulty change that was down to 35% "bonus". It is now a 16% bonus. On Oct 4 it will be down to a ~9% bonus. In time the value of merged mining will be insignificantly higher than "normal" BTC mining prior to the merge. You can't get something for nothing. The markets will adjust to increased supply without increased demand. It can do that without having NMC price go to zero. it will be about a 3% bonus for miners this is because now their work is worth more in the real world, since not only are they supporting BTC, but also a completely different domain name service more services for the same amount of work = more profit |
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4466
Merit: 1800
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
November 01, 2011, 12:41:15 PM |
|
The 3% still is virally taken from bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
November 01, 2011, 01:34:51 PM |
|
The 3% still is virally taken from bitcoin.
This is one thing we agree about completely. Although my reasons for supporting namecoin have nothing to do with invalid assumptions of free money by some. Any "bonus" someone gets from merged mining is simply due to inefficiencies in the system. If you took the total revenue from NMC mining & total revenue from BTC prior to merged mining and the total revenue after merged mining they would be the same. Of course that assume you could isolate all other variables that factor change in BTC & NMC revenue which are unrelated to merged mining. Granted that can't be done outside of theory or simulation but the fact remains. There is no "free lunch" in economics. Supply has increased unless demand increases the per unit price decreases. If person X comes out 3% ahead it is because person Y (who isn't merged mining) is 3% behind. Really no different than pool hopping. If pool hopper are getting > equitable PPS then obviously someone in the pool is getting < equitable PPS (even if they don't realize or believe it). |
|
|
|
|
|
iopq
|
|
November 02, 2011, 09:49:37 AM |
|
The 3% still is virally taken from bitcoin.
This is one thing we agree about completely. Although my reasons for supporting namecoin have nothing to do with invalid assumptions of free money by some. Any "bonus" someone gets from merged mining is simply due to inefficiencies in the system. If you took the total revenue from NMC mining & total revenue from BTC prior to merged mining and the total revenue after merged mining they would be the same. Of course that assume you could isolate all other variables that factor change in BTC & NMC revenue which are unrelated to merged mining. Granted that can't be done outside of theory or simulation but the fact remains. There is no "free lunch" in economics. Supply has increased unless demand increases the per unit price decreases. If person X comes out 3% ahead it is because person Y (who isn't merged mining) is 3% behind. Really no different than pool hopping. If pool hopper are getting > equitable PPS then obviously someone in the pool is getting < equitable PPS (even if they don't realize or believe it). it's different because people spend their namecoins to get domain names and those namecoins go poof this means that people have to keep buying namecoins, which raises their value now namecoins are actually more useful than before because it took days to register a domain name when NMC was plagued by high difficulty, so the usefulness of having this domain name system increased and more people would register domain names in the future, having to buy more namecoins this in turn means that the value of BTC mining < value of BTC + NMC value because the demand for BTC + NMC is higher than just BTC |
|
|
|
|
kano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4466
Merit: 1800
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
|
|
November 02, 2011, 12:35:59 PM |
|
... but they don't work ...
|
|
|
|
|
iopq
|
|
November 02, 2011, 05:26:56 PM |
|
... but they don't work ...
they work I can access http://dot-bit.bit/ because I use a dns server that supports it |
|
|
|
|
panerai
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
November 04, 2011, 01:34:38 AM |
|
small uptick in TBX today
|
|
|
|
|
chungenhung
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1005
|
|
November 04, 2011, 10:01:54 PM |
|
Q: Pools ?
A: Several weeks after first Geist pool launch (pssssst, you heard nuthin ! )
So confused. What are the pools? |
|
|
|
|
|
rahl
|
|
November 05, 2011, 12:50:51 PM
Last edit: November 05, 2011, 01:31:56 PM by rahl |
|
You can't simply increase supply and magically make more money. If you increase the supply when there is a meeting demand you will increase your income. Why would you assume either BTC or NMC have a fixed demand, this is obviously not the case? In the long run the income for the good will be same regardless of the supply but the prices doesn't catch up to the increased supply immediately. Meaning you can sell more items above market equilibrium if you increase your supply rather then just wait for the price to increase. Actually even without increasing demand you will always (except if you are producing exclusivity value) benefit from increasing production if you can do it at no cost. Temporary profits on the market delay and the resulting lower price might create new demand for your product in uses that weren't economical before. |
|
|
|
|
rahl
|
|
November 05, 2011, 01:28:40 PM |
|
Besides would merging LTC and TBX even have any effect on supply? Wouldn't the difficulties just go up and the production of coins in booth remain constant?
So then it all it really does is make booth chains more robust...
|
|
|
|
|
bulanula
|
|
November 05, 2011, 07:47:08 PM |
|
Besides would merging LTC and TBX even have any effect on supply? Wouldn't the difficulties just go up and the production of coins in booth remain constant?
So then it all it really does is make booth chains more robust...
Yes. I prefer we leave LTC alone right now as it is only second to NMC and BTC right now. MM can bring problems as the NMC dropping price shows. |
|
|
|
|
|
michaelmclees
|
|
November 06, 2011, 12:15:47 AM |
|
The thing you guys seem to forget is that merged mining would have nearly no effect on LTC, but would greatly strengthen the power of TBX. No one is mining TBX now, which is why the next difficulty decrease keeps going ever further into the future. The only reason one would have to do merged mining is to strengthen TBX, but who would want to do that? The reason people are mining LTC is because they don't like TBX.
|
|
|
|
|
|
rahl
|
|
November 06, 2011, 01:25:04 AM |
|
This Alternate forum is a bit messy so I don't know if this is the appropriate tread but I noticed my Tenebrix miner (minerd.exe the pre-compiled x64 win binary available of it) had shut down on it's own when I got home today. I am mining with simplecoin.us and I know the pool was down for scheduled maintenance today. So the miner just gives up and closes the command window after a certain amount of retry? Seems to be the case and then how do I set it to unlimited retries?
|
|
|
|
|
