My point was that if people use their hashing power to mine both btc and nmc then you probably have some heavyweights using computing power that an individual cannot compete with realistically.
Well yeah, we care more about security for the naming system than we do about making it easy for a small miner to solo-mine blocks. We *are* interested in improving the ability to pool-mine Namecoin (since that does affect security of the naming system), and we've worked with Luke Dashjr and Matt Corallo on draft specs for this, but for now it's an active research area and would require a hardfork (a contentious one, no less, unless some technical objections are solved).
Some coins use to split algorithms e.g. huc, xmy, dgb etc to force some fairness in mining and add security, but maybe the heavyweight miners i.e., btc merge miners adds something too, maybe security.
I just checked the Huntercoin specs and it accepts two parent PoW types: Bitcoin style and Litecoin style. Litecoin's PoW is a joke that no cryptographer would ever want to go near. Maybe that's OK for Huntercoin's threat model (no state actor is going to try to take over the Huntercoin blockchain) but it's not going to fly here. I also question whether Litecoin's hashrate is nearly high enough for it to provide meaningful AuxPoW security to its sidechains to begin with (even if we accepted the dubious proposition that stuffing a memory-hard key derivation function into Hashcash can be called a "PoW"), but I haven't looked.
