[UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Merge Mine w/BTC! - Update NOW to qt 0.11.5

[BitcoinNational]

RE: merged mining

scorecard
999 UNO has a growing collection of merged coins
011 the merged coins have a cool brand name / help create a naming theme
001 the prehistory of said coin

Have you heard the expression, "There is no 11th marble."?  1011 is your total.  

...But seriously, you sound empassioned.  I like that.  How much BIG have you bought so far?  I actually totally agree with you.  BIG is a great long-term name for a crypto.  It really is.  I also assume people want that merge-mining thing ASAP.  I have to defer my opinion to real miners, now, as I don't mine, anymore.  Mining is TOUGH!

I haven't looked at the BIG webpages, though.  I like UNO.  

FWIW, my opinion now goes with BN that BIG would be a good acquisition, if we took it over/merge-mined it in a fair, organized, and intelligent way.

I also think January is an EXCELLENT month to accomplish this.

Full Disclosure:  I still don't own any BIG at all.  May look into it, if more agree.

Full Disclosure:  I still don't own any BIG at all too.

I just really like the name and it appears to be very much down and out without a dev.  There seems to be a small collection of SHA miners hanging out there.   Also via/umbrella/sys seem to be creating the possibility to share hashes at varying block speeds ... if UNO devs are smart enough they can tweek this adaptation to work for SHAs ... BIG would be a perfect brand for this feature ... both Bryce and Blazr would become super heros for providing safe shelter for all SHA networks

I'd love it if zeta merged ... BUT ... they are geared for 30sec or 60sec?  It's main selling point is speed.

XJO is fine on it's own at 45sec, it should stay there and has a good dev, but if the network is ever in trouble I welcome XjO to 180secs.

2015 is the year of the goat ... as in "Greatest Of All Time" ... so there's that ... and if there's every any problems ... we blame the goat, as in we have a scapegoat.  

MEA is the easiest to merge ... both communities don't have to change the algo, just make some adjustments to share resources hash wise ... same story with goat, oro.

There are other forgotten but still ticking chains Platinum, 21, and UNic ... my guess is that if we offer them a safer network it is an offer they can't refuse.  (21 is a great name to tap into the casino market).

I've even thought going to some cryptsy listed scrypt coin with very low hash and say why not?  They are failing to get 50Mh/s it's a good way to assure survival.  Eyes on NAUT, infinity, Ela, it is a long list :/

DUO ... it needs a reboot but the dev is smart and keen on the idea ... I say yes without question ... but this is very experimental to join a 'multi-algo' coin ... so we'd earn lots of innovation pts ... but this is second act to re-show case the UNO network (and reading between the lines gives UNO the ability to go multi-algo if ever needed).

Last idea is launching our own but it is ever so more difficult to get market listings.  Ideally start the mining on its own at first to assure 'fair' mining but a rapid mine out (like A or Fetish) then to fees only ... when they reach fees only they merge with UNO. (sticking with the non inflationary idea).

  
 

[1715618294]

1715618294

[1715618294]

1715618294

[1715618294]

1715618294

[1715618294]

1715618294

[cragv]

@BN, please excuse my ignorance, but is the point of merged coins simply to make it advantageous for mining? If so, wouldn't you need an identical blockchain for it to work? (To put it another way, doesn't different blockchains mean different calculations are required?)

Love to understand more on this point though. Any and all explanations appreciated! Thanks

Yes makes it advantageous for mining.  UNO is geared to have very low rewards.  If we can also offer some side chains with high rewards then UNO has other attractive bonus points.  

(Because we may be more profitable to mine than BTC but that will be countered quickly by miners switching in-then-out instantaneously ... and this price/hashrate/profitability DANCE repeats ... but could take days/weeks to oscillate up then down )

Having a good blend of merged coins smooths out the mining hash participation.  Because as UNO profitability drops one of the sidechains maybe in the profitability range, so miners just decide to permanently go to the UNO pool.  

Plus if we have something like a counterparty or mastercoin attached to the network, they can add their 'clutter' to one of the sidechains and not the UNO chain.

Perfect, thank you for that explanation.

Am watching the ongoing discussion here and may weigh in if/when I have an opinion that's worth anything beyond being instinctively avert to merging with a coin tarnished by short-sighted greed (BIG + other scam coins, etc.). Carry on

[rojan]

Recent article about merged mining Viacoin -

http://www.cryptoarticles.com/crypto-news/viacoin-network-hashrate-explodes-since-enabling-merged-mining

[balu2]

I'd love it if zeta merged ... BUT ... they are geared for 30sec or 60sec?  It's main selling point is speed.

XJO is fine on it's own at 45sec, it should stay there and has a good dev, but if the network is ever in trouble I welcome XjO to 180secs.

  
 

zet isn't doing so well with the network. Look at transaction times. Is zet really faster than Un? Not much! With the weak network they have you'd need to take 10 confirms - so do they really benefit from sticking to it and NOT merging? I think they would benefit more from merging. UNO is blazing fast with the 3 minutes and very secure. 30 seconds ZET with weak network isn't secure at all. I think they might want to consider right now. Together we stand, devided we fall

xjo is also not what you call a strong network. If that price goes down more they have some trouble. Merging Uno, Zet, Xjo will likely give all three coins more strength. Xjo could stick to their emission and pull through with their plan with no risk of fail and ZET will secure its survival too.
Just some random thought.

I think if you would announce in this very moment on the ZET and Xjo thread merging with uno these coins would jump up in value - uno would also gain some ground.

I think we should at least make a suggestion to ZET community and they have to decide if they want to sacrifice the short blocktime for more network strength. I think for them it's right now a no-brainer to do that. I hold ZET too and i would opt to merge if i was asked tbh. ZET-people need to discuss that. If they decline, ok. But let's have the discussion  ZET network currently is really weak. Maybe they are really greatful for such an idea right now?  


the other ideas you bring to the table are really interesting BN

[SgtMoth]

I hold alot of zeta too.  Im holding lots of different coins too.

[BitcoinNational]

zet isn't doing so well with the network. Look at transaction times. Is zet really faster than Un? Not much! With the weak network they have you'd need to take 10 confirms - so do they really benefit from sticking to it and NOT merging? I think they would benefit more from merging. UNO is blazing fast with the 3 minutes and very secure. 30 seconds ZET with weak network isn't secure at all. I think they might want to consider right now. Together we stand, devided we fall

I am all for zeta, and fully agree with these points (I've observed and thought exactly the same)
the BUT ... We have to convince them, and my guess is they are a tough crowd to convince, even in the face of bright and obvious truths.  

[balu2]

zet isn't doing so well with the network. Look at transaction times. Is zet really faster than Un? Not much! With the weak network they have you'd need to take 10 confirms - so do they really benefit from sticking to it and NOT merging? I think they would benefit more from merging. UNO is blazing fast with the 3 minutes and very secure. 30 seconds ZET with weak network isn't secure at all. I think they might want to consider right now. Together we stand, devided we fall

I am all for zeta, and fully agree with these points (I've observed and thought exactly the same)
the BUT ... We have to convince them, and my guess is they are a tough crowd to convince, even in the face of bright and obvious truths.  

nooo. Don't convince. Just throw the idea at them and see what happens

maybe they want, maybe they don't - worth a try.

[SgtMoth]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=267545.new#new

[IMZ]

"Perfect, thank you for that explanation.

Am watching the ongoing discussion here and may weigh in if/when I have an opinion that's worth anything beyond being instinctively avert to merging with a coin tarnished by short-sighted greed (BIG + other scam coins, etc.). Carry on  "


+1

[balu2]

now let's see what's the reaction.

I also made a comment on xjo-thread.

@craigv, imz

merging means giving miners the option to mine many coins at once - basically hashrates of networks 'merge'. It's expected to be a win-win situation for miners, coins and investors of the coins. Actually i can't see a downside to it as long the merging coins have some basic quality to them.

[cragv]

I'm a bit uneasy about jumping into opening discussion on merged mining with other coins before the discussion has taken its course here first - what if another community is keen and it all just happens on its own momentum before the pros and cons of such a move can be properly explored? Can UNO be hurt by such an undertaking or is my concern unfounded? (Not a great concern overall, but wanted to add this to the conversation as we've come a long way with UNO and reversed progress is not what anyone wants in this great experiment!!).

--
I also found FK mentioned merged mining in the DUO thread here. Sorry if that's been linked here already, I'm doing a few things at once and may have missed it. I quite like the idea of merging with something like DUO, on first examination at any rate!

--
@balu2, I'm still not clear on how the hashrates 'merge'. I loosely understand a minor benefit to the 'secondary' merged coin/s while the primary mined coin still gets the lion's share of mining work output. Without a common blockchain, I don't understand the technical side of this any other way - am happy to learn though!

--
Cheers for the ongoing discussion.

[balu2]

i don't know of any risks that would come with it. If there were some please someone mention them.

@craigv

look at Namecoin, Ixcoin and Iocoin for example. These are all merge mined with bitcoin. Hashrates are as follows (in Gh/s):

Bitcoin: 412 million
Namecoin: 145 million
Ixcoin: 122 million
Iocoin: 58 million

If you look at it: iocoin is a nearly forgotten coin with low interest. Nobody is actually concerned about it - low volume and interest. It still has a very strong network because it's not much extra effort for miners to mine the coins. They still get the same amount of BTC, NMC, Ixc. If they choose to mine ioc or not does not make a difference to the hash on btc and the others as far as i know. So naturally many opt to mine ioc too just because it's at no extra cost to them and they can do it. So IOC is secured with bitcoin hashpower but doesn't take away hash from btc.

it's not like there was a choice to be made if one coin or another gets the hash in case of merged mining. They all do get the same hash.
Merged mining just means the skilled miners get an easy way to mine two or more coins with the same hash. So let's say a miner mines Bitcoin and Namecoin with 1 Th/s
- both networks get 1Th/s added - they do not share chains - they only share work - a very skilled miner can mine even ixc, btc, nmc and ioc at once. All coins get the same hash from it.
From what i understand the miner can opt to mine more coins at the same time and thus mine more profitable - so enabling merged mining is likely to draw in even additional new hashpower.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong on that one.  
My education on merged mining is it should be a win-win for the coins.
Some experienced miner confirm or correct me please.

are there downsides to it i don't know about?

[balu2]

I'd expect if you merge Uno, ZET, xjo to get more hash for each of the networks.

Do we have reason to believe otherwise?
I could even imagine bitcoin hashpower switch over maybe in case mining zet, xjo, uno is more profitable to them than mining btc, nmc, ixc.

Correct assumption? Experts give your opinion please  
Am i correct with this?

[balu2]

what google gives me:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/273/how-does-merged-mining-work

... i see. A downside could be a slightly bigger blockchain. Need some expert speaking on this, i think.


Uno chain right now is extremely compact. Only 380 MB on my HD - this is actually pretty amazing for 1 year of transactions!

The best solution would be to quadruple the price of UNO (it's worth it) and not have to mess with all this stuff at all but in case price doesn't rise quickly enough we'd have to consider these options to keep the chain secure from 51% attacks very likely.

Is there ways to merge other coins with uno without bloating the uno chain? I mean it's so small, it's really amazing. Would be great if we could keep it as small as possible of course.

Certainly needs some input from people with more knowledge than i have.

Merged mining is second best option. Best option is higher price. Right?  

Or in case merging without bloating uno-chain is possible there's no downside at all, correct?

I agree, cragv - we shouldn't rush things and consider all options thoroughly.

[cragv]

Thanks for the exploratory posts here, balu2. Greatly appreciate the insight and I hope to read more as we work through this.

Also of interest is one of your early replies to merging from the ZET thread:

I'm okay for merged mining as long as the Zetacoin consensus does not change.  (no hard forking Zetacoin).
This would require Uno to hard fork.

**Later edit to state that of course, the 'less-healthy' coin should fork - a no-brainer! = UNO should win in almost any merge**

[balu2]

I'm okay for merged mining as long as the Zetacoin consensus does not change.  (no hard forking Zetacoin).
This would require Uno to hard fork.

no, uno wouldn't hardfork for this i hope.
Zet will run out of steam long before uno does so they will be the one of course. Maybe they need more time to see this.

Uno network is very healthy right now - we want super-healthy network.
Zetacoin on the other hand has a hard time to stay above water right now. Maybe they want later ...
... or maybe there are options that don't require any of the coin to fork? I don't know.

I think time for me to shut up and let others talk

Giskard welcomes the idea:

It could be a win for both coins.

I don't think Uno supports AuxPow for merge mining at the moment, is this being planned?

i think maybe this could end up with a vote in zet-community about it later? Devs need to communicate on that too. Watching discussion.

[WillowRosenberg]

The block times doesn't matter for merge mining.

A coin with a 10 minute block time can merge mine with a coin with a 1 minute block time.

[gustav]

The block times doesn't matter for merge mining.

A coin with a 10 minute block time can merge mine with a coin with a 1 minute block time.

so zet can merge and doesn't need change? This would be great news for both coins, wouldn't it?

[WillowRosenberg]

The block times doesn't matter for merge mining.

A coin with a 10 minute block time can merge mine with a coin with a 1 minute block time.

so zet can merge and doesn't need change? This would be great news for both coins, wouldn't it?

Yes, the parameters doesn't need to change, but one of the coins must implement AuxPow.

If a coin has AuxPow it can merge mine with other coins that doesn't have AuxPow.

[gustav]

The block times doesn't matter for merge mining.

A coin with a 10 minute block time can merge mine with a coin with a 1 minute block time.

so zet can merge and doesn't need change? This would be great news for both coins, wouldn't it?

Yes, the parameters doesn't need to change, but one of the coins must implement AuxPow.

If a coin has AuxPow it can merge mine with other coins that doesn't have AuxPow.

the one with Auxpow will get a large blockchain, correct?

Is there an estimate how big the bloat would potentially be?