lol @ people not understanding how things work making arguments that don't make any sense.
Protip:
1) read the alternative chains wiki page
2) understand what a merkle branch is
3) understand (2) allows securing an arbitrarily large namecoin/blahcoin block by adding ~30 bytes to a bitcoin block.
4) understand a single bitcoin tx is more than 80bytes
5) stop whining
Topic: A case AGAINST merging Namecoin and Bitcoin mining [Converted to SUPPORT!] - page 2. (Read 9716 times)
July 19, 2011, 11:49:21 PM
July 19, 2011, 11:35:19 PM
No, both chains will be independent of one another. You don't need to download the Bitcoin blockchain to "cryptographically confirm the integrity of the Namecoin block chain". You can be a regular Namecoin miner or node and still asses if a block/transaction is valid or not.
If that is true, then why?
Quote from: Dot-bit: Merged Mining; Disadvantages
For namecoin users this means a major change, as the blockains won't be compatible between the version below block 24k and above 24k.
Some kind of blockchain corruption is happening. Bitcoin is desinged not to take up too much memory. Why not let the people who want to run two bitcoin clients: one for each blockchain?
I understand namecoin is in a lull right now, but that does not mean you should force bitcoin users to deal with it.
Edit: I also don't like how it is assumed that all miners are using pools.
Quote from: Benefits
Mining becomes more profitable (mining two currencies at the same hash rate for the same kWh. If you don't care about Namecoin you can just sell the mined NMC for BTC).
So.. by halving how much work you do securing both block chains, you increase miner profits? If you get a successful transaction block, are both currencies included? If so, you are either leaving something insecure or bloating both blockchains.
July 19, 2011, 11:24:47 PM
No, both chains will be independent of one another. You don't need to download the Bitcoin blockchain to "cryptographically confirm the integrity of the Namecoin block chain". You can be a regular Namecoin miner or node and still asses if a block/transaction is valid or not.
Then what's the point of sticking proof of anything in the Bitcoin block chain in the first place if nobody ever needs to read it?
July 19, 2011, 10:56:33 PM
By "full support" I mean that the client is able to cryptographically confirm the integrity of the Namecoin block chain, which it does by verifying the hashes from the genesis block to the current block. If the Namecoin block chain is dependent on something that's being tacked onto the Bitcoin block chain, the only way it can confirm the integrity of the chain is to download both blockchains. So, someone who wants to run a Namecoin DNS server suddenly has to download this Bitcoin block chain that will be terabytes soon and growing exponentially each time someone eats at Meze Grill or scores some weed. All so miners can get an extra payout?
No, both chains will be independent of one another. You don't need to download the Bitcoin blockchain to "cryptographically confirm the integrity of the Namecoin block chain". You can be a regular Namecoin miner or node and still asses if a block/transaction is valid or not.
July 19, 2011, 10:33:42 PM
No, you can mine NMC by itself if you desire. Plus there's no way for Tor to support Namecoin, Namecoin will support Tor instead. The Tor project doesn't have to do anything, unless by "full support" you mean buying a Namecoin domain for every hidden service that asks for one.
Perhaps the real direction of "support" is on the Polipo proxy that is bundled with Tor to make browsing work.
By "full support" I mean that the client is able to cryptographically confirm the integrity of the Namecoin block chain, which it does by verifying the hashes from the genesis block to the current block. If the Namecoin block chain is dependent on something that's being tacked onto the Bitcoin block chain, the only way it can confirm the integrity of the chain is to download both blockchains. So, someone who wants to run a Namecoin DNS server suddenly has to download this Bitcoin block chain that will be terabytes soon and growing exponentially each time someone eats at Meze Grill or scores some weed. All so miners can get an extra payout?
July 19, 2011, 10:27:56 PM
If you guys have any more objections to voice, please do so.
I am quite sure that they are probably misunderstanding.
I am quite sure that they are probably misunderstanding.
July 19, 2011, 10:14:02 PM
Auxilliary blockchains are endless in number, the parent blockchain they look to will have more and more and more such blockchains's data in its coinbase transactions.
So it would probably be better to make a blockchain specifically for the purpose of being the parent of a potentially quite large number of auxilliary blockchains. Then bitcoin can decide whether it wants to be an auxilliary to such a thing itself or continue on its own even when possibly this metachain might become even larger in hash power than bitcoin (theoretically, as more and more chains, some possibly of some actual usefulness or value, are added to it).
-MarkM-
So it would probably be better to make a blockchain specifically for the purpose of being the parent of a potentially quite large number of auxilliary blockchains. Then bitcoin can decide whether it wants to be an auxilliary to such a thing itself or continue on its own even when possibly this metachain might become even larger in hash power than bitcoin (theoretically, as more and more chains, some possibly of some actual usefulness or value, are added to it).
-MarkM-
This assume that there'll be an endless amount of auxiliary chains that will be worthy enough of being mined. Personally I don't even see a third chain rising to prominence in the foreseeable future. But even if so, it's ~33 bytes per block according to Mike Hearn. I could send BTC to myself once every block and I'll be adding more information than 7 auxiliary chains combined. If 33 bytes per block is a scalability problem then we are already doomed.
That's because you don't understand the concept of merged mining that's being discussed. 
I don't know if I'm getting trolled or what. Read first, speak later: http://dot-bit.org/Merged_Mining
July 19, 2011, 10:09:49 PM
Then tell me how it is not getting bigger if the number of blocks in the bitcoin blockchain increases every 10 minutes or so?
Obviously I was referring to the belief that the Bitcoin chain will get bloated with Namecoin data.
That's because you don't understand the concept of merged mining that's being discussed.
July 19, 2011, 09:52:25 PM
Then tell me how it is not getting bigger if the number of blocks in the bitcoin blockchain increases every 10 minutes or so?
Obviously I was referring to the belief that the Bitcoin chain will get bloated with Namecoin data.
July 19, 2011, 09:39:58 PM
My vote is against merged mining. If a pool wants to offer a service to allow their users to mine NMC or BTC that is fine but anything where the two block chains are inter-weaved or inter-dependent or whatever-dependent word I can use is similar to pegging the Yuan to the Dollar.
The chains will not be connected in any way. Merged mining will combine the power used to find hashes needed for creating blocks, regardless of which chain they belong to. Also, the value of the coins in the chains will not be linked. Namecoins will become worthless because name registration will become free, thus adding nothing new over bitcoins.
The other thing I don't see is what problem(s) does merged mining solve that need to be solved for BOTH block chains? So far I don't see any problems with bitcoin's network or blockchain.
More hashing power increases security. I'd say that's a rather good thing.
July 19, 2011, 09:36:37 PM
Auxilliary blockchains are endless in number, the parent blockchain they look to will have more and more and more such blockchains's data in its coinbase transactions.
So it would probably be better to make a blockchain specifically for the purpose of being the parent of a potentially quite large number of auxilliary blockchains. Then bitcoin can decide whether it wants to be an auxilliary to such a thing itself or continue on its own even when possibly this metachain might become even larger in hash power than bitcoin (theoretically, as more and more chains, some possibly of some actual usefulness or value, are added to it).
-MarkM-
So it would probably be better to make a blockchain specifically for the purpose of being the parent of a potentially quite large number of auxilliary blockchains. Then bitcoin can decide whether it wants to be an auxilliary to such a thing itself or continue on its own even when possibly this metachain might become even larger in hash power than bitcoin (theoretically, as more and more chains, some possibly of some actual usefulness or value, are added to it).
-MarkM-
July 19, 2011, 09:29:14 PM
My vote is against merged mining. If a pool wants to offer a service to allow their users to mine NMC or BTC that is fine but anything where the two block chains are inter-weaved or inter-dependent or whatever-dependent word I can use is similar to pegging the Yuan to the Dollar.
I would rather namecoin grow on its own and become successful on its own without depending upon bitcoin aside from the basic principles built into the code that are alike.
The other thing I don't see is what problem(s) does merged mining solve that need to be solved for BOTH block chains? So far I don't see any problems with bitcoin's network or blockchain. I do see a need for the namecoin network to grow, but not at the reliance on bitcoin's resources, information, or anything for that matter.
I would rather namecoin grow on its own and become successful on its own without depending upon bitcoin aside from the basic principles built into the code that are alike.
The other thing I don't see is what problem(s) does merged mining solve that need to be solved for BOTH block chains? So far I don't see any problems with bitcoin's network or blockchain. I do see a need for the namecoin network to grow, but not at the reliance on bitcoin's resources, information, or anything for that matter.
Bitcoin's resources aren't being diverted. From what I understand, miners are just using the same resource against the two chains.
We are not talking about devoting half of the mining to resource to bitcoin or to namecoin.. We are talking about improving mining efficency.
Merge mining add value, rather than slicing the pie. Rather than earning bitcoins, you earn the same amount of bitcoin while also earning namecoin.
Think of your car getting an increase in fuel efficency on a single gallon of gas, rather than the gas of gallon being divided up between two cars.
July 19, 2011, 09:23:13 PM
I think merging them is a mistake. Keeping them separate will allow for more flexibility with both. Namecoin's block chain will become secure enough as it gets used for more and more important things.
One of the FEW drawbacks of BitCoin is the size of the block chain. It already interferes (though I know there are workarounds) with mobile applications. Why would you want to make it bigger?
Merging the two block chains does not add as much value as it takes away from both projects.
One of the FEW drawbacks of BitCoin is the size of the block chain. It already interferes (though I know there are workarounds) with mobile applications. Why would you want to make it bigger?
Merging the two block chains does not add as much value as it takes away from both projects.
The size of the Bitcoin blockchain is not getting bigger. Educate yourselves before giving opinions guys.
Then tell me how it is not getting bigger if the number of blocks in the bitcoin blockchain increases every 10 minutes or so?
July 19, 2011, 09:21:16 PM
My vote is against merged mining. If a pool wants to offer a service to allow their users to mine NMC or BTC that is fine but anything where the two block chains are inter-weaved or inter-dependent or whatever-dependent word I can use is similar to pegging the Yuan to the Dollar.
I would rather namecoin grow on its own and become successful on its own without depending upon bitcoin aside from the basic principles built into the code that are alike.
The other thing I don't see is what problem(s) does merged mining solve that need to be solved for BOTH block chains? So far I don't see any problems with bitcoin's network or blockchain. I do see a need for the namecoin network to grow, but not at the reliance on bitcoin's resources, information, or anything for that matter.
After the recent revelation of the explanation of what merged mining really is. I do support it.
I would rather namecoin grow on its own and become successful on its own without depending upon bitcoin aside from the basic principles built into the code that are alike.
The other thing I don't see is what problem(s) does merged mining solve that need to be solved for BOTH block chains? So far I don't see any problems with bitcoin's network or blockchain. I do see a need for the namecoin network to grow, but not at the reliance on bitcoin's resources, information, or anything for that matter.
After the recent revelation of the explanation of what merged mining really is. I do support it.
July 19, 2011, 09:19:02 PM
I think merging them is a mistake. Keeping them separate will allow for more flexibility with both. Namecoin's block chain will become secure enough as it gets used for more and more important things.
One of the FEW drawbacks of BitCoin is the size of the block chain. It already interferes (though I know there are workarounds) with mobile applications. Why would you want to make it bigger?
Merging the two block chains does not add as much value as it takes away from both projects.
One of the FEW drawbacks of BitCoin is the size of the block chain. It already interferes (though I know there are workarounds) with mobile applications. Why would you want to make it bigger?
Merging the two block chains does not add as much value as it takes away from both projects.
The size of the Bitcoin blockchain is not getting bigger. Educate yourselves before giving opinions guys.
July 19, 2011, 08:58:57 PM
I think merging them is a mistake. Keeping them separate will allow for more flexibility with both. Namecoin's block chain will become secure enough as it gets used for more and more important things.
One of the FEW drawbacks of BitCoin is the size of the block chain. It already interferes (though I know there are workarounds) with mobile applications. Why would you want to make it bigger?
Merging the two block chains does not add as much value as it takes away from both projects.
One of the FEW drawbacks of BitCoin is the size of the block chain. It already interferes (though I know there are workarounds) with mobile applications. Why would you want to make it bigger?
Merging the two block chains does not add as much value as it takes away from both projects.
From what I understand, the two block chains is not being merged together. This is the consenus by Satoshi and others long ago in the BitDNS thread.
July 19, 2011, 08:52:07 PM
I think merging them is a mistake. Keeping them separate will allow for more flexibility with both. Namecoin's block chain will become secure enough as it gets used for more and more important things.
One of the FEW drawbacks of BitCoin is the size of the block chain. It already interferes (though I know there are workarounds) with mobile applications. Why would you want to make it bigger?
Merging the two block chains does not add as much value as it takes away from both projects.
One of the FEW drawbacks of BitCoin is the size of the block chain. It already interferes (though I know there are workarounds) with mobile applications. Why would you want to make it bigger?
Merging the two block chains does not add as much value as it takes away from both projects.
July 19, 2011, 08:44:39 PM
It is the pool who decides, not the miners... My understanding of the proposal is that this could be done by the pool without the miner's knowledge.
To take that a step further, it's the programers that would be merging the blockchains that decides... It sounds like you don't really understand what is being proposed? Sorry if I'm incorrect.
To take that a step further, it's the programers that would be merging the blockchains that decides... It sounds like you don't really understand what is being proposed? Sorry if I'm incorrect.
You are incorrect. What do you understand by merged mining exactly? (looks like we should have gone with the term cross mining instead of merged mining)
A chain designer can decide to make it possible to merge mine with Bitcoin, but that doesn't mean Bitcoin miners will bother merge mining with a worthless chain.
Anyway, you are not affected in any way by merged mining so I don't see what you are whining about. Actually you are affected positively, since more profitable mining will lead to more hashing power and thus better network security.
July 19, 2011, 08:27:04 PM
The miners will decide if they mergemine pussycoins or nutsackcoins depending on profitability. If nobody cares about those chains then nobody will mine them.
It is the pool who decides, not the miners... My understanding of the proposal is that this could be done by the pool without the miner's knowledge.
To take that a step further, it's the programers that would be merging the blockchains that decides... It sounds like you don't really understand what is being proposed? Sorry if I'm incorrect.
July 19, 2011, 08:12:56 PM
Don't pollute the project by merging it with anything that will make an extra buck. It will most likely only destroy both projects, or at least devalue them to the point where they're basically worthless.
Bitcoin is not getting polluted. You can mine BTC by itself if you don't care about mining NMC.
Not to mention, what about when pussycoins come to the market, or nutsackcoins? Who decides what can/can't be merged? It's starting to make bitcoin sound a whole lot less attractive to me. Don't go down that rabbit hole.
The miners will decide if they mergemine pussycoins or nutsackcoins depending on profitability. If nobody cares about those chains then nobody will mine them.
Jump to: