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

[FallingKnife]

if we implement auxpow with btc we wouldn't have to sacrifice the 3-minute-blocks or would we?

This auxpow is does not exist (yet).  I am not a fan of auxpow off the BTC network.  Because that means we give up on the 'Fair' part of Uno.  I suggest creating something that lets others tap into Aux Uno.

I saw this as an interesting comment BN.  How is securing the network with auxpow giving up on the Fair part of Uno?

I don't see it that way, but would like to understand why you do.  To me the fair aspects of Uno were created by Blazr2 at launch, and I don't see as something that can be lost. Am I wrong?

On that last point -- any coin can tap into and Auxpow Uno, but we haven't see that happen yet. I have approached probably 15 coin devs in the past 4 months about aux mining with uno, and even recently offered a bounty for the first coin to do it, but there haven't been any takers.  Getting others to auxpow with Uno isn't within our control. But doing auxpow/btc is within our control.  Uno becomes part of a small group of coins that are secured by immense power.  If I'm a miner (and I am) I have a greater chance at profitability by mining several coins simultaneously.

I think... let us duke it out with Bitcoin on fairness, rarity, community, store-of-value, but not on network security. Today we lose the nework security argument to them. But reaching  a virtual parity with Bitcoin on network security is within our grasp through auxpow, and eliminates that weakness for Uno.

I haven't been able to see the downside of this yet, but I'm still looking hard for one.

[1714151671]

1714151671

[1714151671]

1714151671

[1714151671]

1714151671

[1714151671]

1714151671

[gustav]

new concept:



does this make sense?
With this kind of concept Uno can still be a place for miners with weaker hardware too.
Just an idea  

Is this any good?

[BitcoinNational]

@gustav

$20,000 for one UNO coin before we are equal to BTC market capital?

$1080000 is what BTC pays its network per day.  @ 15 uno / day >> $72000/kg before we pay what BTC pays to secure value on a SHA256 network.

$72000/kg will buy plenty of Hash

And like you said the reward halves about twice a year, so we go to $144000/kg in May and to about $300k/kg in 1 year from today.

I am not saying UNO is worth $300k/kg ... but if we follow the bitcoin model of what you need to pay your network ... then UNO is worth $300k/kg come next January.

This is my attempt to explain what is a good store of value and what is a bad store of value to the BTC fanatics.  A vault keeper that bills you $1 million a day is a bad place to store value.  And that is exactly what the BTC network is charging.  UNO offers the same (exact same possibly) security for micro pennies on the dollar.

@Knife

the Fair part

40,640,955,016
vs
1,000,000

40000:1

That's bitcoins difficulty verses what I call a 'fair' coin something at difficulty 1,000,000.  Again bitcoin x40,000 past fair.  It is going straight to BIG BIG money who are taking BIG BIG risk in $multi million dollar ASIC factories.

So plugging UNO into the BTC hash stream is basically say hey come take all the value out of mining UNO for the average Joe.  That's why I am saying not fair.

But in a couple more halves say UNO year 3 ... fair is fair ... plenty of time to get in on the UNO thing ... and UNO can graduate into the superHash stream.  


@gustav
Yes that's the idea.  Let's help the small-time miners keep in the game.  Spread the wealth some, keep SHA256 from going monolithic. Again.  

but ... I think getting to the green circle means FORK uno ... I still think is fine around UNO year 3.  

but ... what if we topple BTC in the next 2 years ?  Then no fork and we are still helping the little coins.  

it is possible

-----
Ideal Sha256 Universe Summer 2015

BTC ... miners hoping off in droves to below
Peer ... big Hash
Uno ... big Hash
x-Coin ... slightly less Hash than Uno
y-Coin ... slightly less Hash than Uno
z-Coin ... slightly less Hash than Uno

Now smaller coins can
a) struggle with trying to match/gain hash power
b) merge with one of the above
OR ... plug in the UNO auxPow

[gustav]

@BN 300k$ for one coin would probably make me loose my mind  
It's beyond of what i could imagine right now. But i like your thinking. It's possible for sure. Uno would need to go viral for that or draw in very big investors. You never know. It's all possible with the internet certainly.

@gustav
Yes that's the idea.  Let's help the small-time miners keep in the game.  Spread the wealth some, keep SHA256 from going monolithic. Again.  

but ... I think getting to the green circle means FORK uno ... I still think is fine around UNO year 3.  

but ... what if we topple BTC in the next 2 years ?  Then no fork and we are still helping the little coins.  

it is possible

this will also depend, like FK says, if there will be any takers and other coins implement it. If no other smaller sha-coins want to implement that we'll have not so many choices left.
Let's try to get the other coins to auxpow with uno.

On the other hand: if we toppled bitcoin it would be no disadvantage to be auxpow with it because uno can still be mined seperately. Say bitcoin goes to zero and uno goes to 300k$ a coin miners will just mine uno directly - no problem there.

Right now hash is not so high. I wouldn't want to wait for another two years tbh with taking some action there.

If bitcoin fails and we implemented auxpow with it, it won't affect uno as we are still building the blue circle.

auxpow with bitcoin can be had almost instantly, will raise security and price.
Building the blue circle can still be done but is also mainly depending on the other coins to implement it and likely not in our direct control.
In case bitcoin fails the blue circle is what everyone goes forward to.

So why not actually build it all at once? -> implement auxpow with btc and still look for other coins to auxpow with uno. Just like the last graphic shows.

[BitcoinNational]

By creating the 'code' to do the blue circle AuxPow w/ UNO
you also have created the 'code' to do the green circle AuxPow w/ BTC

-just a slight modification is needed-

1.  UNO devs get the street credit
2.  We can test it for a couple of months in the blue circle.
3.  UNO must fork to enter the green circle.
4.  Once you set up the green circle, the average person can mine UNO no longer, even at rent-a-hash, 500TH/s is small time at that level. 

[gustav]

By creating the 'code' to do the blue circle AuxPow w/ UNO
you also have created the 'code' to do the green circle AuxPow w/ BTC

-just a slight modification is needed-

1.  UNO devs get the street credit
2.  We can test it for a couple of months in the blue circle.
3.  UNO must fork to enter the green circle.

if you say it needs more coding and testing because it's not really out there and the devs need to practice some, what you're saying makes sense of course.
We'll need the other coins on board with it.
So build blue circle for couple of months, see how it works out and implement green circle later if it's still a topic and bitcoin still relevant.
I think at this point it's up to the devs and the other coin communities.
Maybe we should let our devs decide on it if they feel they want to test on other coins first or if the tech is good enough to implement in uno already (i have no insight there).

[BitcoinNational]

" implement green circle later if it's still a topic and bitcoin still relevant. "

Yeap.  Exactly what I am thinking

Go with the blue circle.  See what happens, we could get the code and everything perfectly right, but some BTC black swan event makes the green circle irrelevant.

I think Devs (both UNO and other coins) need to hash it out, talk it over, and then speak to the community.

[wickedsick]

" implement green circle later if it's still a topic and bitcoin still relevant. "

Yeap.  Exactly what I am thinking

Go with the blue circle.  See what happens, we could get the code and everything perfectly right, but some BTC black swan event makes the green circle irrelevant.

I think Devs (both UNO and other coins) need to hash it out, talk it over, and then speak to the community.

i would also like to see this happen...rather than just merge mining with btc

[gustav]

building both circles will give us maximum security and also provide for good decentralisation.

green: can be had easier (no big diplomacy) , provides A LOT of hashpower BUT could become obsolete
blue: is more diplomacy and longer process but also good to have that environment and will make the small miners happy and devs can use it for training. In case bitcoin bites the dust it is an important part.

Would love to in fact see that mining-ecosystem emerge. Will put uno ahead of pretty much all coins imo. I think once this mining-system is a reality uno should be a huge coin and unchallenged #1 coin for storing value.

I see a bright future coming with this.

[FallingKnife]

If I am ZET's dev, why would I auxpow with Uno, instead of just going directly to BTC?
It's the same amount of work for me, and I have to fork.  What advantage would I perceive in choosing Uno instead of Bitcoin?

[BitcoinNational]

If I am ZET's dev, why would I auxpow with Uno, instead of just going directly to BTC?
It's the same amount of work for me, and I have to fork.  What advantage would I perceive in choosing Uno instead of Bitcoin?

auxpow with Uno will be readymade and with side support help

But

auxpow with BTC probably could be 'hacked' out of auxpow with Uno if ZET devs choose that route


advantages

1.  UNO miners 'get' the non-inflationary idea, and Zeta is among that class of coins.  So the attraction to mine Zeta/Uno in the Uno group is stronger than the the mine Zeta/BTC group.  Proof in their current network numbers.  A low hash coin low reward coin with the ability to mine 0.0000099 btc per day ... wow!

2.  Zeta/BTC will get little demand from current BTC pools, my guess is each pool set up will require bribes.   Zeta/Uno will likely be warmly received from eager pool Ops.  Very different crowds.

3.  Cuz it's cool to mine Uno and Zeta at the same time.  Rising UNO prices help pay for more ZET mine support.  Zeta starts to look more and more like a secure network, drawing more investors. 

4.  UNO/ZET gain the public perception of being equivalents of different measure if UNO trades for $5 then one ZET is $0.05.

5. And we fight the BTC inflationary dragon together

[gustav]

If I am ZET, why would I auxpow with Uno, instead of just going directly to BTC?
It's the same amount of work for me, and I have to fork.  If I am a ZET dev, what advantage would I perceive choosing Uno instead of Bitcoin?

you'd be safe with uno even in the event of bitcoin failing maybe? And maybe also to do the small miners some good?

Building that ecosystem with the smaller coins is certainly more diplomacy and maybe uno will later be more interesting than bitcoin to them. Next few months will reveal what the deal is with bitcoin.

I'd be for building both those circles. We can work on both simultaneously, right?  
If no established coin wants to auxpow with uno we can still take on abandoned coins or launch the own ones to build the blue circle.

Maybe uno is soon much more interesting to auxpow with for the other devs? Certainly possible.

[prominerone]

 Ok I wonder what Blazr2 have to say about all this. ? We didn't see him here for long time?

[FallingKnife]

I don't know, man. It's still a ton of work for very little hash.
Even if you scoop up all of hash for all of the smallcap coins out there, it doesn't amount to much. Then there's the matter of convincing pool ops to take it on.

I was once an activist on the plan to get other coins to mm with Uno, but then after going out and talking to different coin devs and trying to convince them, I have become much less optimistic it is viable.

I would sure welcome any coin to authpow with Uno, but you'll have to show me one first. I couldn't find one, maybe someone else can. My bounty still stands.

I've come around to thinking differently about hash. There's no ego in it. Hash is hash is hash.  It goes to where it can make money.  And it's not "Bitcoin's network."  No, it's really just "Miners mining for profit."  They would be glad to also mine Uno at the same time because it makes them more profitable. The hashes don't care -- if they work with a Uno block, that's great.  And Uno doesn't care, just as long as the hash fits. We're just talking about securing the value of your Uno in the blockchain. There's no defeat whatsoever in choosing to authpos with Btc.  Hash doesn't care.  

I've been pushing the idea of "altruistic hash" around Uno, and have spent money with a cloud miner to keep hash on Uno at all times. The capitalist in me would much rather mine both Btc & Uno together, and maybe some other useful coins to boot, especially since Uno is generally less profitable to mine than Bitcoin. Even if we go to authpos with bitcoin, I'll still retain my unhealthy emotional attachment to Uno, and I will choose a pool that merge mines Uno, but at least I'll get paid more.
And when Uno becomes more profitable to mine than Bitcoin? Even better! Miners can earn more money. But nothing really has to change.  It doesn't matter, so long as there's enough hash to keep Uno secure.

AuthPos with Btc is something our devs could do to secure Uno.
AuthPos with Uno is something we have to wait for others to do to secure Uno.

I would love Blazr2 to weigh in on it. BW thinks it might be the way to go. But none of this is up to me.

[ocminer]

I can make a pool for you guys if you integrate auxpow. There is always a Main chain with decent hash which could be used for that, so that should not be a Problem at all.

If uno Supports auxpow like for example namecoin does, it is added in a matter of seconds to an existing infrastructure on the pool

[BitcoinNational]

@knife

"altruistic hash" is a fringe benefit / a bonus

The concept is still very much rooted in capitalist principle ... the 2 are not exclusive in this case.

This also brings UNO to the point of merging with BTC with out actually merging (go BtcAux).

"Uno is generally less profitable to mine than Bitcoin"

This is were I think past performance is not an indicator of future performance.

Paycoin proved just what you said: " Hash is hash is hash.  It goes to where it can make money."

So rising UNO prices and falling BTC prices is 9/10ths of the equation.

The AuxPow w/ Uno is more about demonstrating the Uno communities ability to be innovative and forward thinking.  

It counters the argument that the Uno network lacks sidechains, and BTC and LTC have sidechains therefore any 'worthy' network must have sidechains.  

It shows the Uno network can go toe-2-toe with the big boys tech wise.

---

In SHA256 land mining anything but BTC is less profitable.  

And today I have also suggested that the public's perception of the value/cost/benefit of the BTC network are way out of wack.  To the point of being wacky.  And the network will milk this public misconception until it is dry.

Uno may end up with a large chuck of the network infrastructure because bitcoin prices completely collapse.  

Or the public gets smarter. (doubtful)

Or uno may have to hop on to the BTC network.    

Creating the UnoAux extends the time frame, and gains more public notice/exposure, and if needed it generates the code to go BtcAux.
 

[FallingKnife]

It's official! UNO/LTC is 1:1 today.

https://www.cryptonator.com/rates/UNO-LTC/1

[BitcoinCharlie]

UNO/LTC is 1:1 today.

https://www.cryptonator.com/rates/UNO-LTC/1

Yeah, I've seen us hover in that vicinity for a few days. Just wish our market caps were the same, not the price of each coin! 

[sirsmokesalot]

UNO/LTC is 1:1 today.

https://www.cryptonator.com/rates/UNO-LTC/1

Yeah, I've seen us hover in that vicinity for a few days. Just wish our market caps were the same, not the price of each coin! 

It is a similar difference Yeah if our market cap was as high as ltc we would all be much happier, but even still, having price parity with ltc is a pretty awesome thing. Well not if you are holding ltc after buying at 40 but if ya mined Uno when it was in its infancy it is sorta cool. It is good to see active conversation about securing the future of Uno.

What is the real worry about securing the network though? Are we concerned that someone is going to 51% attack the uno chain? It is only of real benefit if you are doing transactions. You would have to have a sum of Uno that is large enough to make the 51% attack worthwhile. I guess someone could do it, just to do it, but i don't think it would be the best use of that individuals efforts.

Is the concern that no one will mine Uno in the future and eventually the chain will grind to a halt? Taking this one step at a time is most likely the best bet. No need to rush into merged mining just because it is what the other cool kids are doing. The longer we wait the cheaper and more efficient hardware becomes and the easier it then becomes to support the network. I can see everyone working really hard to get merged mining done and then in 6 months from now someone releases yet another new technology that makes merged mining a thing of the past, and there we will be, working towards that new goal.

From a logical standpoint, if i ignore my amorous feelings towards Uno, it makes sense that Uno would be the coin merging into another coin, btc or what ever. The rewards are so low right now for Uno that it just "doesn't pay" to mine the coin. Easy fix, just toss a bunch of capital into uno then, to make it worth peoples time. lol. So much easier said than done. Even with 100 coins merged into the chain that i get as a byproduct of mining uno, that doesn't add any extra value to uno imo. Right now you could pretty much double the hashrate for zeta for under 3btc. So even securing the network, how much more secure is it really going to be if we did manage to merge others with us?


 

[cragv]

...Is the concern that no one will mine Uno in the future and eventually the chain will grind to a halt? Taking this one step at a time is most likely the best bet. No need to rush into merged mining just because it is what the other cool kids are doing. The longer we wait the cheaper and more efficient hardware becomes and the easier it then becomes to support the network. I can see everyone working really hard to get merged mining done and then in 6 months from now someone releases yet another new technology that makes merged mining a thing of the past, and there we will be, working towards that new goal.

I'll just leave this here... Quantum Computers (YouTube 6 min animated intro/discussion)

(Also, good to see you around, sirsmokes - was wondering where you were!)