Yes, there was: http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=217 merged mining will start in 370 NMC blocks but nevertheless it is a good idea to discuss further options. Both solutions aren't mutually exclusive.phelix wrote:was there a vote about merged mining? if not, how who made the decision?
implications of merged mining / shared blockchain
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:46 pm
- os: linux
Re: implications of merged mining / shared blockchain
Access .bit domains with Firefox in 4 easy steps: https://masterpool.eu/proxy
MasterPool Namecoin Mining Pool
MasterPool Namecoin Mining Pool
Re: implications of merged mining / shared blockchain
could not find anything like a vote there...nodemaster wrote:Yes, there was: http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=217 merged mining will start in 370 NMC blocks but nevertheless it is a good idea to discuss further options. Both solutions aren't mutually exclusive.phelix wrote:was there a vote about merged mining? if not, how who made the decision?
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:46 pm
- os: linux
Re: implications of merged mining / shared blockchain
We had several threads for two month hearing everybodys concerns and discussing the details. We cleared any issue and vinced even waited long between his posts and updates. Furthermore we did a full rollout on testnet and forked the blockchain there and no one complained. At the end there were no one saying that there is a problem with this implementation. Thus we had a strong consensus between all people who cared.phelix wrote:could not find anything like a vote there...
Access .bit domains with Firefox in 4 easy steps: https://masterpool.eu/proxy
MasterPool Namecoin Mining Pool
MasterPool Namecoin Mining Pool
Re: implications of merged mining / shared blockchain
thank you for clarifying. I understand I am too late with my concerns.nodemaster wrote:We had several threads for two month hearing everybodys concerns and discussing the details. We cleared any issue and vinced even waited long between his posts and updates. Furthermore we did a full rollout on testnet and forked the blockchain there and no one complained. At the end there were no one saying that there is a problem with this implementation. Thus we had a strong consensus between all people who cared.phelix wrote:could not find anything like a vote there...
I like namecoin and the ideas behind it very much and am afraid merged mining might harm the project. especially as there are simpler solutions to the problem of the stranded block chain available.
hopefully I am wrong and it will work out just fine. leaning back to watch the show
Re: implications of merged mining / shared blockchain
(aga on https://bitcoin.org.uk/forums/topic/63- ... the-world/)[...] knowing that everyone who got a bitcoin has also got an equal amount of namecoins, what would you assign to the value of namecoin? My bet is zero, or some really really small speculative value. So after a little bit, the additional income merged mining provides will become negligible - simply installing and updating additional software and bearing with its additional security risks would not worth it. Obviously that means half-death for namecoin; they will eventually will start thinking about disabling the merged mining, but that will be almost impossible: they would suddenly be left with huge difficulty (inherited from bitcoin blockchain) with little processing power dedicated for namecoin mining. A dead end. And the similar problems might easily happen after bitcoin protocol evolves - it won't happen frequently, but will effectively require the entire piggy-backing currency to update their software all at once.
interesting discussion going on over there
also hugolp:
[...] Merged mining might be more of a problem and a trap for alternative block chains than a solution.
Re: implications of merged mining / shared blockchain
Does he knows that merged mining was Satoshi's idea?Vladimir wrote: It appears that Vince almost have pulled off a successful "community infiltration attack" using ages old trojan horse technique.
As far as I can tell this is a live or die test for Bitcoin. If Vince's attack is successful it will be terminal for Bitcoin.
Parasitic? All namecoin miners will mine bitcoin too. This is Symbiosis.Vladimir wrote: Make no mistake, though. This parasitic mining is an attack on Bitcoin and it seems it has all the chances to be successful. Make no mistake it will lower (or already has lowered) Bitcoin's value.
Too many emotions there and too little rational thinking.
Namecoin will rise its value because it will increase its security.
Will people leave bitcoin because it has a little bit more (current namecoin's hashing power) of security?
C'mon...
And for hugolp, maybe in the short term namecoin's price drops despite its security multiplies, but they won't drop under 0.00001 btc because I would buy them all. Just saying. I don't know a many nmc are out there, but I predict its value in dollars will not drop much, probably increase. Anyway, here the important thing is namecoin's network being more secure and having a block every 10 minutes, not our personal investments in the currency.
If you think that both currencies will drop, go on and sell them, but stop crying and calling Vinced's important development an attack, because it makes no sense.
Re: implications of merged mining / shared blockchain
> Namecoin will rise its value [...].jtimon wrote:Does he knows that merged mining was Satoshi's idea?Vladimir wrote: It appears that Vince almost have pulled off a successful "community infiltration attack" using ages old trojan horse technique.
As far as I can tell this is a live or die test for Bitcoin. If Vince's attack is successful it will be terminal for Bitcoin.
Parasitic? All namecoin miners will mine bitcoin too. This is Symbiosis.Vladimir wrote: Make no mistake, though. This parasitic mining is an attack on Bitcoin and it seems it has all the chances to be successful. Make no mistake it will lower (or already has lowered) Bitcoin's value.
Too many emotions there and too little rational thinking.
Namecoin will rise its value because it will increase its security.
Will people leave bitcoin because it has a little bit more (current namecoin's hashing power) of security?
C'mon...
And for hugolp, maybe in the short term namecoin's price drops despite its security multiplies, but they won't drop under 0.00001 btc because I would buy them all. Just saying. I don't know a many nmc are out there, but I predict its value in dollars will not drop much, probably increase. Anyway, here the important thing is namecoin's network being more secure and having a block every 10 minutes, not our personal investments in the currency.
If you think that both currencies will drop, go on and sell them, but stop crying and calling Vinced's important development an attack, because it makes no sense.
some people expect the opposite. Nobody can be sure what happens so it is a dangerous experiment.
Re: implications of merged mining / shared blockchain
It is only dangerous for the current holders not for the namecoin network (it's already tested). The market should factor the risks and potential gains in the price and whoever was right with his predictions would profit more.> Namecoin will rise its value [...].
some people expect the opposite. Nobody can be sure what happens so it is a dangerous experiment.
But, wait, there's some people that don't want trade before 19200. This thread made me go mad:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43465.0
Why people hate this wonderful project?
Re: implications of merged mining / shared blockchain
it is not easily possible to test more than just the basic functionality. Nobody knows what the bitcoin miners will do with their namecoins. If you would send lot of free namecoins to everybody mining bitcoins you might get an impression of what will happen.jtimon wrote:It is only dangerous for the current holders not for the namecoin network (it's already tested). The market should factor the risks and potential gains in the price and whoever was right with his predictions would profit more.> Namecoin will rise its value [...].
some people expect the opposite. Nobody can be sure what happens so it is a dangerous experiment.
But, wait, there's some people that don't want trade before 19200. This thread made me go mad:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43465.0
Why people hate this wonderful project?
I have some namecoins and have registered a couple of domains and so it bothers me but bitcoinEXpress's actions are totally legit. There is a flaw and he will exploit it and even publicly announces so.
Re: implications of merged mining / shared blockchain
Why does he exploit the flaw when its solution is going to be launched soon?phelix wrote: I have some namecoins and have registered a couple of domains and so it bothers me but bitcoinEXpress's actions are totally legit. There is a flaw and he will exploit it and even publicly announces so.
The word "legit" doesn't sound very good in this context to me.
Mtgox and myBitcoin attacker's actions are legit too?
If his motivation is really "get data from an experimental attack" instead of stealing from others why can't he just attack a testing chain?
Can I enter in your house, burn it and say "Hey, your lock is not secure enough"?
Does the fact that I warn you first change the fact that I'm burning your house?
bitcoinEXpress: The lock of your house is not secure enough: I have machine that I think can brake it. So one of this days I'll try to enter in it and burn it all to see how much I can destroy with my machine.
phelix: Oh, thank you. That way we could learn a lot about secure locks. You even warn me, what a gentleman!