[ANN] Merged mining with bitcoin, emercoin, namecoin,


#21

[quote=“hrobeers, post:20, topic:3975”]If miners are able to mine on multiple chains, they will as it raises their profitability.
So it is fair to assume that the peercoin hashrate can get close to namecoin’s hashrate.
Which indeed pushes peercoins PoW difficulty up.[/quote]

if that helps you to increase PPC price is ok, but if this is in the first phase only increase the costs of extraction, it is not very correct, we must balance the initial phase of the merger, it is likely that many miners off the machines. … … …

then, I seem to have understood that the chains are independent of one another even with the merger, so why should increase the difficulty?


#22

i think the price will go down first, when there is an increase in mining, because that is what miners do: dump their coins to pay the bills, maybe later the price will go up thanks to increased scarcity, but not directly


#23

It seems to me that merged mining is seen more as a bad thing around here.
So we let it rest for now?

If so, the 50PPC will be used for PeerKeeper development.


#24

[quote=“hrobeers, post:23, topic:3975”]It seems to me that merged mining is seen more as a bad thing around here.
So we let it rest for now?[/quote]

i don’t get that impression. people seem still thinking about it.

i agree with you that

So it is fair to assume that the peercoin hashrate can get close to namecoin's hashrate. Which indeed pushes peercoins PoW difficulty up.

#25

Miners that are making a profit today on mining BTC/NMC can raise their margins by also mingin PPC.
This will lower the margins for all miners not doing so, effectively pulling even more mining power to PPC.


#26

I agree.
I also believe that it could potentially create a positive feedback loop as time progresses. Essentially a large portion of the supply would be mined right as soon as the difficulty starts to increase. With each subsequent spike the supply per day would tapper off and make lower highs of PPC mined per day.
Something like this:

It would take some time for the miners to realize that if they hold and sell after new supply rate diminishes, they will have higher returns. All that is required is that market demand stays at the level that is always has; it won’t require an increase in demand for this to start affecting market price. Perhaps this will even convince some of the miners to stake with their newly minted PPC.


#27

Reading through old bitcointalk threads and found a few statements made by Sunny early on.

“In our opinion it is by no means clear that energy will not going to stop being spent on Bitcoin. It’s a concious choice by us to not support merge mining as it introduces additional long term risks. Let’s just settle at that.”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102342.msg1122433#msg1122433

“Mining is compatible with Bitcoin mining, but not merge-minable with Bitcoin.”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99735.msg1092339#msg1092339

“Merge-mining will not be supported. The main benefit of merge-mining is to help a new crypto-currency to withstand 51% attack by leveraging the power of Bitcoin. This function is currently provided via our central checkpoint and will be provided by proof-of-stake protection in the future. So I don’t see much benefit in supporting merge-mining.”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102342.msg1149826#msg1149826


#28

[quote=“saeveritt, post:27, topic:3975”]Reading through old bitcointalk threads and found a few statements made by Sunny early on.

“In our opinion it is by no means clear that energy will not going to stop being spent on Bitcoin. It’s a concious choice by us to not support merge mining as it introduces additional long term risks. Let’s just settle at that.”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102342.msg1122433#msg1122433

“Mining is compatible with Bitcoin mining, but not merge-minable with Bitcoin.”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99735.msg1092339#msg1092339

“Merge-mining will not be supported. The main benefit of merge-mining is to help a new crypto-currency to withstand 51% attack by leveraging the power of Bitcoin. This function is currently provided via our central checkpoint and will be provided by proof-of-stake protection in the future. So I don’t see much benefit in supporting merge-mining.”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102342.msg1149826#msg1149826[/quote]

I agree, with you


#29

So I think we can reach consensus to not go further with this.

I also understood that it is not done to move funds between peer4commit projects, so the 50ppc will stay there for if it would be implemented somewhere in the future.


#30

Yeah these points still stand in regard to merge mining in my opinion.

[quote=“saeveritt, post:27, topic:3975”]Reading through old bitcointalk threads and found a few statements made by Sunny early on.

“In our opinion it is by no means clear that energy will not going to stop being spent on Bitcoin. It’s a concious choice by us to not support merge mining as it introduces additional long term risks. Let’s just settle at that.”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102342.msg1122433#msg1122433

“Mining is compatible with Bitcoin mining, but not merge-minable with Bitcoin.”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99735.msg1092339#msg1092339

“Merge-mining will not be supported. The main benefit of merge-mining is to help a new crypto-currency to withstand 51% attack by leveraging the power of Bitcoin. This function is currently provided via our central checkpoint and will be provided by proof-of-stake protection in the future. So I don’t see much benefit in supporting merge-mining.”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102342.msg1149826#msg1149826[/quote]


#31

Thank you for confirming your stance, Sunny.


#32

What long-term risks is he talking about? The ones listed in the OP as cons?


#33

He expanded a little bit in his weekly update…

[quote=“Sunny King”]Weekly Update #202

[ul][li]Bitcoin reached its 2nd halving this week (congratulations!). As expected peercoin’s proof-of-work difficulty is pushed up due to influx of miners. Currently peercoin’s proof-of-work difficulty is about 700M, roughly doubling the difficulty before bitcoin’s halving.[/li]
[li]There is a discussion regarding merge mining (https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=4655.0). I am still of the opinion that merge mining does not provide any security benefit to peercoin as peercoin’s security is pure proof-of-stake. Additionally supporting such feature involves significant development and maintenance overhead.[/li][/ul]

Have fun![/quote]

He also said this in my email conversation…

Merge mining only benefits bitcoin blockchain. The overhead of maintaining both the blockchain and the mining tools is quite significant. So there is no good reason to do it if there is no real benefit to the blockchain.

#34

Merged mining benefits miners, who want to put equipment to use, to earn coins, in order to sell both things they’ve mined in exchange for BTC, so they can sell that value into USD or other coins.

The purpose of Peercoin’s PoW SHA256 miners is twofold:

  1. Give fair distribution

(before I say the second reason, let’s say that again)

  1. Give fair distribution

AND

  1. To help secure the network in the early stages, when PoS (proof-of-stake) deciding the next block and chain, could be assisted by PoW (proof-of-work blocks)

Based on this theory, merged mining, raises the profitability of miners, but as Sunny King has suggested, doesn’t really help our chain. It also requires a lot of program code (commits) to make us compatible for merged mining.

Merged mining doesn’t help peercoin.

Merged mining helps miners who want to sell Peercoin, and sell Bitcoin.

I disagree with merged mining efforts.

There is no shortage of SHA256 miners right now. We are getting PoW mined blocks on a regular basis. Everything is running fine.


#35

i wish an EMC dev can comment why they think merge mining will help EMC which is a clone of PPC if i am not mistaken.
i guess i am the only person that see the “green” benefit of merge mining.