Optimized cpu-version - LTC/FBX/TBX - what's about merged mining of these 3?

[Schwede65]

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

[btc_artist]

This is a good question.

[DeathAndTaxes]

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]

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]

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

[Come-from-Beyond]

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]

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

Come again?

[Come-from-Beyond]

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]

Still not following, sorry.

[DeathAndTaxes]

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]

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]

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]

[
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]

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]

Well, perhaps my understanding is realy flawed. I'll read more about it.

[localhost]

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]

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. 

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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...