Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 05:27:55 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Optimized cpu-version - LTC/FBX/TBX - what's about merged mining of these 3?  (Read 2650 times)
Schwede65
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 309


View Profile
December 22, 2011, 01:56:48 PM
 #1

Is it possible to do so, or has the code to be updated for this action of merged mining these 3?
1481304475
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481304475

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481304475
Reply with quote  #2

1481304475
Report to moderator
1481304475
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481304475

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481304475
Reply with quote  #2

1481304475
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
btc_artist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


Bitcoin!


View Profile WWW
December 22, 2011, 02:00:01 PM
 #2

This is a good question.

BTC: 1CDCLDBHbAzHyYUkk1wYHPYmrtDZNhk8zf
LTC: LMS7SqZJnqzxo76iDSEua33WCyYZdjaQoE
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
December 22, 2011, 02:24:33 PM
 #3

Well the code of any chain has to be modified to support merged mining.

If you use a master - slave model like BTC does then the "master" chain doesn't need to be modified.  Pools supporting the merged mining will need to be modified to generate the proper coinbase transactions.
Schwede65
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 309


View Profile
December 22, 2011, 02:52:50 PM
 #4

Well the code of any chain has to be modified to support merged mining.

If you use a master - slave model like BTC does then the "master" chain doesn't need to be modified.  Pools supporting the merged mining will need to be modified to generate the proper coinbase transactions.

so master/slave model:

LTC = BTC, then TBX- and FBX-code has to be modified.
kjlimo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


View Profile WWW
December 22, 2011, 05:06:28 PM
 #5

Sounds good to me... if only I were a programmer...

CampBX for buying BTCs, Coinbase for selling BTCs or Vircurex or Cryptsy for trading alternate cryptocurrencies like DOGEs

PM me with any questions on these sites!  Happy to help!

Bitcoin Poker at Seals                  Strike Sapphire Casino  Free games every hour & day!
  Get Free Bitcoins here.

Spondoolies-Tech or KnC Miner for the fastest mining hardware available!

Bitpay to help your business accept bitcoin payments!
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1414

Newbie


View Profile
December 22, 2011, 05:37:54 PM
 #6

Is it possible to do so, or has the code to be updated for this action of merged mining these 3?

What the point to do merged mining? It's profanity of the idea.
btc_artist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


Bitcoin!


View Profile WWW
December 22, 2011, 06:00:33 PM
 #7

What the point to do merged mining? It's profanity of the idea.
Come again?

BTC: 1CDCLDBHbAzHyYUkk1wYHPYmrtDZNhk8zf
LTC: LMS7SqZJnqzxo76iDSEua33WCyYZdjaQoE
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1414

Newbie


View Profile
December 22, 2011, 06:13:25 PM
 #8

It's better for *coins to have an algorithm that requires as much resources as possible (relatively to difficulty). If you mine TBX and FBX for free then it's like having 0 difficulty.
btc_artist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


Bitcoin!


View Profile WWW
December 22, 2011, 06:40:16 PM
 #9

Still not following, sorry.

BTC: 1CDCLDBHbAzHyYUkk1wYHPYmrtDZNhk8zf
LTC: LMS7SqZJnqzxo76iDSEua33WCyYZdjaQoE
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
December 22, 2011, 07:54:31 PM
 #10

It's better for *coins to have an algorithm that requires as much resources as possible (relatively to difficulty). If you mine TBX and FBX for free then it's like having 0 difficulty.

Why is it better?  Also why would you consider the cost of mining TBX/FBX as "free".  Why not consider TBX & FBX as half the cost and LTC "free"?
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1414

Newbie


View Profile
December 22, 2011, 08:17:59 PM
 #11

It's better for *coins to have an algorithm that requires as much resources as possible (relatively to difficulty). If you mine TBX and FBX for free then it's like having 0 difficulty.

Why is it better?  Also why would you consider TBX/FBX free.  Why not consider TBX & FBX as half the resources and LTC are "free".


Difficulty to solve a block depends on difficulty of "parent" coins. Children (TBX and FBX) mining is a side-effect. It would be equal to 70 coins reward per block if we counted that each block of TBX and FBX worth 10 LTC (for example). So why bother of "children" coins? Just switch from 50 LTC to 70 LTC reward! It's like multiplying all new coins to 1.4 coefficient ( =70/50 ). According to the design there must be only 84000000 LTC, but merged mining extends this limit to almost infinity (u can add more and more merged currencies). That's why I'm saying that merged mining breaks initial idea.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
December 23, 2011, 01:48:54 AM
 #12

Difficulty to solve a block depends on difficulty of "parent" coins. Children (TBX and FBX) mining is a side-effect. It would be equal to 70 coins reward per block if we counted that each block of TBX and FBX worth 10 LTC (for example). So why bother of "children" coins? Just switch from 50 LTC to 70 LTC reward! It's like multiplying all new coins to 1.4 coefficient ( =70/50 ). According to the design there must be only 84000000 LTC, but merged mining extends this limit to almost infinity (u can add more and more merged currencies). That's why I'm saying that merged mining breaks initial idea.

First, your understanding of merged mining is flawed.  Each chains solves its own blocks at its own difficulty.

Second the number of LTC isn't increased.  It is like saying mining more copper increases the amount of gold in the world.  Just because a single mine can extract both gold and copper doesn't somehow increase the gold supply.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1414

Newbie


View Profile
December 23, 2011, 05:36:24 AM
 #13

[
First, your understanding of merged mining is flawed.  Each chains solves its own blocks at its own difficulty.

Second the number of LTC isn't increased.  It is like saying mining more copper increases the amount of gold in the world.  Just because a single mine can extract both gold and copper doesn't somehow increase the gold supply.

If mining LTC gives u free TBX and FBX then difficulty of these currencies does not matter.

I know that limit of LTC is not changed. I just assumed that 1 block reward of TBX/FBX equals to 20% of LTC to simplify calculations.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
December 23, 2011, 05:45:21 AM
 #14

Mining LTC doesn't give you free TBX/FBX.  Like I said your understanding of merged mining is flawed.  Each chain is mined at its own difficulty.  It is possible that TBX ends up more popular and has a higher difficulty.

You aren't mining X and getting Y free.  You are taking a hash and checking that single hash against 2+ chains.  Still even if TBX/FBS were "free".  Who cares?  What is the problem?  They aren't free to an attacker who now has to contend with much higher difficulty.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1414

Newbie


View Profile
December 23, 2011, 06:59:58 AM
 #15

Well, perhaps my understanding is realy flawed. I'll read more about it.
localhost
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 389


View Profile
December 23, 2011, 08:31:37 AM
 #16

Second the number of LTC isn't increased.  It is like saying mining more copper increases the amount of gold in the world.  Just because a single mine can extract both gold and copper doesn't somehow increase the gold supply.
You can't really compare cryptocurrencies to real atoms with a real intrinsic value. But anyway, if one can extract both copper and gold from the same mining effort, it does increase the rate at which both are mined, because one can suppose that people mining only gold will likely switch to mining both at once, and same for people mining only copper.

Mining LTC doesn't give you free TBX/FBX.  Like I said your understanding of merged mining is flawed.  Each chain is mined at its own difficulty.  It is possible that TBX ends up more popular and has a higher difficulty.
If everyone switches to merged mining, all those merged-mined chains will end up with the same diff. So it is really like mining 50 LTC + x TBX + y FBX from the same effort as it would have been to mine just 50 LTC or just x TBX or just y FBX. So it is really like mining one of them and getting the other 2 free.

Who cares?  What is the problem?
That's splitting the value of a chain into 3. Of course, maybe you think a LTC being worth 0.002 BTC is too much and that making that 0.0006 would be better?
That's also reviving dead currencies for the profit of the few people who stashed a lot of them (not to mention the 7M TBX premine) and will thus find them gaining some value again.
Finally, that's opening the road to merged-mining of, say, 50 meaningless cryptocurrencies (if we merged-mine 3 currencies, why not add some other new ones to the party?). BTC is already not getting much of a merchant adoption, I'm not sure any merchant would bother dealing with 50 different and weak cryptocurrencies, they already most often don't bother with several real currencies...

They aren't free to an attacker who now has to contend with much higher difficulty.
From the number of people actually mining TBX and FBX at the moment, I'm not sure the diff would really increase much. Also, did it ever occur to you that this virtual attacker could do merged attacking, too?
I like how we see so often the same technique as politicians use: spray fear to justify anything. "Booo, beware of the naughty attackers, we should add trusted nodes to check-in every other block." Reminds you of something?

-
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
December 23, 2011, 01:50:28 PM
 #17

Who cares?  What is the problem?
That's splitting the value of a chain into 3. Of course, maybe you think a LTC being worth 0.002 BTC is too much and that making that 0.0006 would be better?
That's also reviving dead currencies for the profit of the few people who stashed a lot of them (not to mention the 7M TBX premine) and will thus find them gaining some value again.
Finally, that's opening the road to merged-mining of, say, 50 meaningless cryptocurrencies (if we merged-mine 3 currencies, why not add some other new ones to the party?). BTC is already not getting much of a merchant adoption, I'm not sure any merchant would bother dealing with 50 different and weak cryptocurrencies, they already most often don't bother with several real currencies...[/quote]

So why even mine LTC then?  Like you said BTC alone has a massive uphill battle and it far more developed with far more support than any alt chain.

They aren't free to an attacker who now has to contend with much higher difficulty.
From the number of people actually mining TBX and FBX at the moment, I'm not sure the diff would really increase much. Also, did it ever occur to you that this virtual attacker could do merged attacking, too?[/quote]

Of course attacker would merge mine but increased difficulty would make any such attack futile.  You do understand this was the reason for merge mining NMC to begin with.

For the record I don't think merge mining alt-coins which aren't used for anything other than mining and speculated will have any significant good I also don't think it will have any significant harm either. 

Quote
I like how we see so often the same technique as politicians use: spray fear to justify anything. "Booo, beware of the naughty attackers, we should add trusted nodes to check-in every other block." Reminds you of something?

For the record I own no alt-coins so I have nothing to gain or lose.  Fear is often used for control (war on terra, secure nodes, etc).  Merge mining doesn't give anyone control so your comparison falls flat.
localhost
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 389


View Profile
December 23, 2011, 02:12:16 PM
 #18

So why even mine LTC then?  Like you said BTC alone has a massive uphill battle and it far more developed with far more support than any alt chain.
Because it seems to be the only credible CPU chain at the moment. Clearly it has a lower priority to me than BTC mining (e.g., when there was still the Catalyst bug, I gave one full CPU core to each of my GPUs), but when the CPU isn't doing anything else, well, why not?

Of course attacker would merge mine but increased difficulty would make any such attack futile
As I said, "from the number of people actually mining TBX and FBX at the moment, I'm not sure the diff would really increase much." Sure, the difficulty for TBX and FBX would increase a lot, but what matters is LTC.

Fear is often used for control (war on terra, secure nodes, etc).  Merge mining doesn't give anyone control so your comparison falls flat.
I'm sorry, did I mention anything about control? Control isn't the only possible objective of manipulation by fear. Giving some value to some 7M premined stash, on the other hand, could be one.

-
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
December 23, 2011, 02:20:52 PM
 #19

So why even mine LTC then?  Like you said BTC alone has a massive uphill battle and it far more developed with far more support than any alt chain.
Because it seems to be the only credible CPU chain at the moment. Clearly it has a lower priority to me than BTC mining (e.g., when there was still the Catalyst bug, I gave one full CPU core to each of my GPUs), but when the CPU isn't doing anything else, well, why not?

In effect merge mining (just in hardware not software).  All the issues you expressed about merge mining applies to any alt coins.  The supply of LTC indirectly affects the effective supply of BTC.  

Just seems funny you believe too many coins is bad but 1 more = great.  Just a matter of perspective I guess.

Quote
but when the CPU isn't doing anything else, well, why not?
Kinda the same argument for merged mining.  If I can mine 2 chains using same hash why not mine 2 chains instead of 1 or the other. What else am I going to use that invalid LTC hash for right?  Why waste it, why not see if it solves another chain's block.
localhost
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 389


View Profile
December 23, 2011, 02:45:28 PM
 #20

In effect merge mining (just in hardware not software).  All the issues you expressed about merge mining applies to any alt coins.  The supply of LTC indirectly affects the effective supply of BTC.
Maybe by a few fractions of a percent of a percent, yes. Although I'm not sure people who use a CPU to mine LTC would use this CPU to mine BTC if no CPU chain was available.

Just seems funny you believe too many coins is bad but 1 more = great.  Just a matter of perspective I guess.
I definitely don't think that 1 more = great. But since it's there I jump on the boat "just in case". I have no plan to ever accept any other ccurrency than BTC as a mean of payment, though.

Quote
but when the CPU isn't doing anything else, well, why not?
Kinda the same argument for merged mining.  If I can mine 2 chains using same hash why not mine 2 chains instead of 1 or the other. What else am I going to use that invalid LTC hash for right?  Why waste it, why not see if it solves another chain's block.
Sure, if it's implemented I'll use it (unless there's no decent pool to do so like is the case for BTC and NMC). But this will likely be harmful to LTC because it will obviously dilute it's value. There's a bit of the same problem with NMC diluting BTC's value, but because BTC's lead is very clear it's not too much of an issue. I'm not sure LTC's lead is that clear over TBX and FBX. But I guess we'll see, if merged mining happens to get implemented...

-
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!