Search found 1426 matches

by phelix
Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:52 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: merged mining v2, MM2
Replies: 6
Views: 2015

Re: merged mining v2, MM2

Ah yes, I recall now - it was about the midstate compression. This seems to be a nice trick and I think it is used by some other coins and applications; but I cannot really comment on its security implications, as I'm not a cryptography expert. I guess that such "hacks" tend to potentially weaken t...
by phelix
Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:37 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: Hardfork Wishlist
Replies: 15
Views: 3441

Re: Hardfork Wishlist

Fix the value size bug (1024 bytes) or even increase the value size to 2,5k as discussed earlier (this does not really make flooding any easier but will simplify some legit use).
by phelix
Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:35 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: merged mining v2, MM2
Replies: 6
Views: 2015

Re: merged mining v2, MM2

I don't know too much about what exactly the benefits and (more importantly) the implementation challenges for P2Pool "MMv2" are. Well, forrestv seems to be of the opinion that it is necessary to allow "non-solo" p2pool mining. As for the challenges I think it is relatively easy to implement* but m...
by phelix
Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:05 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Replies: 44
Views: 10133

Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9

Created a separate thread for MM2: https://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?p=16183

Should we call the (intermediate) solution above MM1b?
by phelix
Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:04 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: merged mining v2, MM2
Replies: 6
Views: 2015

merged mining v2, MM2

There is a hardfork coming up: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9 Maybe we should use it to also implement MM2. This would allow P2Pool mining with reasonable income variance. https://github.com/p2pool/p2pool/issues/265 https://github.com/forrestv/mm2-spec Can we reuse code from P2Pool / somewher...
by phelix
Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:59 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Replies: 44
Views: 10133

Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9

biolizard89 wrote:Should I ping Luke-Jr and see what he thinks about this topic? He's always given us good advice, and he's knowledgeable about merged mining.
Sure can't hurt.
by phelix
Sat Jan 02, 2016 2:55 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Replies: 44
Views: 10133

Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9

ok, then I guess one minimal solution would be: 0. all blocks must be merge mined 1. auxPOW nonce must always be chainID 2. parent nonce must never be chainID :mrgreen: :?: Yes, this is what I'm thinking about. Except that 2) is not necessary, because 0) already ensures that PoW cannot be reused - ...
by phelix
Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:10 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Replies: 44
Views: 10133

Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9

ok, then I guess one minimal solution would be:

0. all blocks must be merge mined
1. auxPOW nonce must always be chainID
2. parent nonce must never be chainID

:mrgreen: :?:
by phelix
Wed Dec 30, 2015 10:25 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Replies: 44
Views: 10133

Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9

Assuming it is not necessary for difficulty to ever again go down all the way to the bottom ('ASICS') it might also be safe to use a couple bits from "bits". That might be more "robust" as it can not be altered in other coins as easily as the nonce...
by phelix
Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:12 pm
Forum: Project direction
Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Replies: 44
Views: 10133

Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9

Thinking further about it, we cannot really use the nonce either: Since we have to enforce that the chain ID is present also for non-auxpow blocks (to avoid reusing them as auxpow as described above), we have to allow miners to change the nonce. Ah, so you would get two Namecoin blocks for one. Not...