Search found 1429 matches
- Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:57 am
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
- Replies: 44
- Views: 145565
Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
One more thing: I initially thought that we could still allow ordinary mining for testnet and regtest mode (where it does not matter that you may get two blocks at once by merge-mining with Namecoin itself). But I think this makes things more complicated, thus I suggest that we remove ordinary PoW ...
- Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:56 am
- Forum: Tools, GUI & other softwares
- Topic: Namecoin Local PGP Keyserver Plugin
- Replies: 16
- Views: 116431
Re: Namecoin Local PGP Keyserver Plugin
It would be nice if someone could give it a try as I would like to claim the bounty.domob wrote:Thanks for your work on this - sounds great! I'm unfortunately too busy at the moment to give it a try - but I think this is a good step forward!
- Sat Jan 09, 2016 1:19 pm
- Forum: Tools, GUI & other softwares
- Topic: Namecoin Local PGP Keyserver Plugin
- Replies: 16
- Views: 116431
Namecoin Local PGP Keyserver Plugin
Latest infos on Github: https://github.com/phelix/npkh Allows you to make sure you are using the right PGP key by getting a secure pgp key fingerprint from a Namecoin id/ :mrgreen: [continued from https://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?p=16117#p16117] (edited a lot; 2017-08-10 and 2017-12-15)
- Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:52 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: merged mining v2, MM2
- Replies: 6
- Views: 59364
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...
- Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:37 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Hardfork Wishlist
- Replies: 15
- Views: 88230
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).
- Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:35 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: merged mining v2, MM2
- Replies: 6
- Views: 59364
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...
- Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:05 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
- Replies: 44
- Views: 145565
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?
Should we call the (intermediate) solution above MM1b?
- Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:04 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: merged mining v2, MM2
- Replies: 6
- Views: 59364
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...
- Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:59 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
- Replies: 44
- Views: 145565
Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Sure can't hurt.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.
- Sat Jan 02, 2016 2:55 pm
- Forum: Project direction
- Topic: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
- Replies: 44
- Views: 145565
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 - ...