Topic: [ANN][EMC2] Einsteinium | FUNDING THE FUTURE WITH THE FUTURE OF CURRENCY - page 323. (Read 1076409 times)

Well, if that is the case, I think we should definitely thrive to be the first to get merged mined with Litecoin.  That would be huge.

Btw, the simple fact it has been suggested right now, it puts a clock on who's gonna be first. Assuming you don't need actual support from litecoin devs.

I just added some more colour to that topic in my last post.

Essentially both coins gain from the improved hashing rate.
the smaller coin gets the added security of more hash.
however they have to give up control of their Block retargeting and PoW system (I think)
they can control how many coins are created per block and who those coins get sent to via levies etc
but they cant control the difficulty re-targeting or the PoW algorithm.

and of course.. if the larger network gets 51% attacked.. that means the smaller one is also attacked at the same time. (I believe this would be the case since the pools would be mining both coins at the same time and the most common attack would be taking over the largest pool)

EDIT: This is the way I understand Merge mining anyways and im not an expert so there may be other ways of doing it...
but basically:

Network A sets the difficulty target... All miners try to find the solution for that difficulty... someone finds it (usually in a pool).. that person/pool gets to process the next block from Network A and Network B. once they stamp the block with the solution hashed with some other stuff.. they get their coins as a block reward from both Network A and B... network A then adjusts the difficulty and then the process repeats.

Actually if you merge mine with a coin bigger than yours.. I don't think you need to ask permission because its your network that has to change.. as far as I understand it, the larger network doesn't need to do anything.

that being said however, having advice and expertise help from their community wouldn't go astray.

As far as the litecoin guys being up for merged mining.. they already are.. as per the proposal to merge Doge mine with Litecoin here:

http://www.forexminute.com/litecoin/charles-lee-proposes-litecoin-and-dogecoin-merged-mining-28021

Litecoin is a natural fit for a scrypt coin like EMC2 because there is less work involved in implementing merged mining for similar algo coins.

however... Litecoins difficulty re-targeting sucks.. there's no KGW, no Digishield.. just the good ole block retargeting from bitcoin which is open to mutipool abuse (unless they changed it since the last time I looked at it)..... so if EMC did merge mine with Litecoin it would have to adopt litecoins outdated PoW system. (booo!)

i really don't have an answer to what would be the best coin to merge mine with... they all have pitfalls but I am happy to hear other peoples opinions and to let the community decide on whether merge mining is taken up at all and who with if so.

I think the bigger problem with any change to the EMC2 system is going to be getting the right person/s to implement it.

EDIT: I should have added here that the pools will probably need to change to merge mining.. and they may or may not want to depending on how difficult it is to implement.

Alphi,

I would probably better not have written the MsC thing, wasnt meant as some stupid brag or sth, you are right everyone can write anything on the internet and it is completely irrelevant. It just came to my mind.

I think we were both misunderstanding eachother at some points and I mostly agree with you, at least in those parts which are relevant for emc2 and that is the only thing that is important here. The total effects on the altcoins of merged mining are not relevant here.

I think it all comes down to this:

Is securing the network via merged mining and the fact that more people would at least temporarily hold emc2 generating a higher demand for the coin? You think the answer is yes, I have read comments in other threads that were stating the opposite. I guess you are the one who is right. But why would, for example, Litecoin want to do this? Isnt the "smaller" partner the one who wins. I mean who hasnt heard of LC and if I would want one, I would buy one.

I have been pretty much the first one to say Scrypt-N isn't nearly as ASIC resistant as people thought. The challenge with scrypt ASIC was to effectively manage memory. The amount of memory is pretty irrelevant, just need to have more available for the adjustment (higher cost, but definitely not a challenge like how to manage memory was). There is ASICs with multiple hashing algorithms already, but like you said, 5. The thing about that, is the more algos, the less efficient. It's easy as cake (for people who develop them) to add algorithms, The thing is hitting the point where it's viable to produce them (the many steps from and inbetween R&D, minimum contracts with fabs to assembling and shipping). Right now only one coin is really viable, being darkcoin, and with the exponential reward drop in darkcoin, ASICs would absolutely not be viable for that coin.

All that to say, ASIC will come, but who cares. We are not close, and yeah, kicking the can down the street right now seems like a decent enough option. X11 is in infancy, and right now we are getting raped by multipools as soon as we hit a viable price.

And about merge mining, I do like the fact (as you mentioned) that it would inevitably increase the pie size, which is ultimately what matters. But then, who would be, not only the perfect candiate, but also the candidate that will do it? Litecoin is obviously the BEST choice, but do you think we would be able to sell them the idea? I personally think it would be great, and that they would see real value in supporting a coin that DIRECTLY supports science (as opposed to some coins with "goals" and "purpose", this coin is actually doing it, and in a fairly automated manner). But what I believe would be the reaction of Litecoin devs with this request would be that it's a marketing stunt from us, and wouldn't want to give the impression of backing coins for their survival. They suggested it with doge because it was the "next best", which doesn't need much justification.

So, if we're gonna talk about merge mining, let's talk about candidates. Algo change being possible, especially since merge mining will require US to fork.

PS. algo change to scrypt N is a terrible idea, let's stay clear of that one.

ok ill just have to take your word for it since I have no way of disputing that.


In the sense that it secures the network and restores confidence in EMC2. Then the change in demand should be positive.



I agree that nothing done to the technical side of one coin will have much of an effect on the market for other alt coins or the altcoin market as a whole.

that is up to marketing and education..

which is partly why I threw in those comments about merge mining making it easier to raise taxes.

at the moment the tax rate is fixed.. which means that no matter how many people mine or how much EMC2 is worth, there is a fixed rate of coins going to the Einsteinium foundation.
when the EMC2 price is high then this is awesome.. but when EMC2 tanks, this is very bad for the foundation because they don't have enough funds to continue developing the coin. People in the core team lose interest and shit hits the fan... (like now)

so... raising taxes in and of themselves doesn't really help the foundation at all if the price of EMC is still tanking..
hence the need for securing and stabilizing the network along with restoring community confidence as a top priority.

but what I'm saying is .. if you make the necessary changes in a creative way.. you can have your cake and eat it too.

by stabilizing and securing the network in a way that allows you to raise additional taxes... you can keep the levy for funds which go towards funding Scientific projects.
and you can raise an additional levy for funds to be used to support the foundation and the coin itself... (development costs, marketing, advertising, education and market stabilization etc)...

having an additional levy for EMC development not only helps the economy grow but it takes coins out of circulation.

Of course any and all changes to the system should be voted on by the community....
Of course there would have to be a lot more transparency involved if a further levy was raised.

Just food for thought...

Alphi, thank you for your effort. I knew how merged mining in general works and I agree it is a good thing to secure the network.

I hope I am not too confused about how markets work, as in fact I hold the equivalent of an MsC in economics  . I also know about the efficient market hypothesis, but all this is getting a bit too far.

The most important sentence of your reply is probably this one:

"the added bonus of course is that those miners get their hands on some EMC2 without having to buy them on exchanges.. so they become new users."

This would mean that merged mining changes the demand for a coin. This in fact would be a major argument for merged mining.

Let me note though, that merged mining will not change total demand for altcoins, so when everyone has switched to merged mining we are right back were we started. I still think merged mining is good, but grossly overhyped when it comes to the whole market of altcoins.

no worries buddy I will try to elaborate...

Merge mining is the process of doing Mining (PoW) calculations for one coin where the proof is then used to secure another coin or several other coins.

For example.

Bitcoin is mined... but you can also merge mine Namecoins if you choose.

Now lets say that you choose to mine Just Bitcoins...

lets say that with your new wizbang mining rig you manage to get 1 bitcoin per day.

if you mine Just bitcoins then thats all you get.. just one bitcoin a day..

however if you then decide to mine Namecoins which are merge mined with Bitcoin..
you would still get your 1 BTC a day plus some namecoins..

this is how merge mining works.. the same work (calculations) you did to find a block in Bitcoin is used to find blocks in Namecoin.

so if you merge mine Bitcoin and Namecoin then the namecoins you get are essentially free (because they dont cost you anything more to produce.)


now take that example and apply it to EMC2.

If Merge Mining was adopted, a person mining Litecoin for example, could also mine EMC2 at the same time. So the EMC2 they get are essentially free.

now given the choice between mining just Litecoin OR Litecoin and EMC2 (merge mined) most (but not all) miners would choose to mine both.
this means that most of the hashing power being used to find blocks and secure the Litecoin network would also be used to Secure the EMC2 network (so the difficulty and network hash rate would skyrocket)
This also means that since those EMC2 are being created for free by virtue of the shared proof of Work ie merge mining, most miners will still Merge mine even if you put the taxes up because they are still getting more coins than if they just mined only Litecoin or only EMC2.

the added bonus of course is that those miners get their hands on some EMC2 without having to buy them on exchanges.. so they become new users.

now according to network effect theory.. the more people you have using a product or service.. the more valuable it becomes. (you can read up on that if you dont already know about it... I don't think I need to explain it here) therefore getting EMC2 into the hands of more miners people is always a good thing...

so merge mining really does solve most of the problems a small coin like EMC2 could have.

If you think it all sounds too much like fantasy magic money theory... it really isn't.. just look at how Namecoin and Bitcoin merge mining works.. they were the first to merge mine but since then many other coins have gone down that path.


To answer the second part of your question I think your are a little confused about how markets work.. People may mine at a certain price and expect to sell at that level.. but that rarely happens. In a bear market Miners are forced to sell much lower than they were anticipating due to factors such as more efficient competitors and electricity bills or a crisis in confidence...
that's what is happening to EMC2 currently... many people mined thinking they were going to be able to sell at 800 satoshi are now being forced to sell at 133 satoshi because they either have financial commitments or simply lost their nerve. GPU miners are also competing directly with Scrypt ASIC miners who can mine the same coins for less than 10% of the power. The point is though, that the market (ie the collective wisdom of everyone participating) adjusts the price to reflect all of those factors..  (This is called Market efficiency theory)... so regardless of what action is taken, or not taken.. and what manipulation happens.. the market should in theory adjust back to its true value. That's really just a long winded way of saying.. you don't have to worry about the people who mined before a EMC2 switches over to a new PoW system and the people who mined after because the market will adjust accordingly.

in reality the only thing you have to worry about is growing the pie, increasing investor/user confidence and securing the network.. if you do that then the market and price of EMC2 will grow.

sorry if that was too long winded.. I do tend to ramble sometimes.

EDIT: BTW I was talking about the mining tax that is used to fund Einsteinium projects...

I agree with you. Here emc2 have already his purpose. By securing the network you allow the community to concentrate on expanding the usefulness of the coin, not only on giving for research but for buying things too. If you want the price to rise you need people to spend the coin.
Creating a coin with with the only purpose of merge mining it will probably ,in mid term,  result in no value. I don't think it will happen to emc2 since it was built with something else in mind.

I don't think asics are as a big threat as everybody seems to think, let's see what will happen.

We could merge mine with digibyte 

I never said I supported merge mining with Vertcoin.. I just said I support merge mining.. (the most logical would be with Litecoin since they are both Scrypt)
nor did I say I was one of those hysterical people that fears ASICs.
"ASICs will come soon regardless of which algorythm you mine." and "Fear of ASICS is irrational" are not incompatible statements.

the argument for a change to Merge mining is all about securing the network and increasing the number of people holding the coins (i.e. network effect)  not running from ASICs.

What makes you think I know nothing about ASICs? I have been researching them for months. After all that's what any miner worth their salt would do.

as I already stated there are already ASIC designs with 5 out of 11 of the X11 algos.. and there are even ASICs being designed (and close to production) for Scrypt N.. if you knew anything about ASICS you would already know that and you wouldn't need me to spell it out.

to base any argument for changing the PoW scheme on fear of ASICs is both illogical, hysterical and ultimately futile... that was my point in case you missed it.

While I totally agree about A) and B), could you explain to me the existence of free coins and what happens with them. Lets think about the hypothetical scenario with just two existing coins A and B, both are mined seperately, both have the same market price and for simplicity same number of coins. Now you change to merged mining. The group which mined A dumps B at market price and the gruop which used to mine B dumps A at market price, A buys coin A on the market and group B buys coin B. To my understanding the number of coins will not change (the difficulty will increase), the market price will be constant, every member of each group ends up with the same number of coins. The only difference is that they are mined by different persons (plus the network is more secure). Now where exactly are the free coins that you can tax and no one cares about it?

I think the scenario with 2 coins can be carried over to the reality, the outcome will not change. You can add different demand, more coins, different prices, dont think it changes anything.


Really, I am just trying to understand.

I like that you put a lot of effort into saying ASIC are coming soon (without knowing anything about it), yet, end your post basically saying the fear of ASIC is irrational (which is my whole point).

The point of changing algo isn't really to be ASIC proof. We pretty much learned at this point there will probably never be ASIC proof. The best you can hope for is that ASIC aren't extremely viable (like sha2).

So you think being the 4th coin people get as pocket change mining vert is gonna help emc2? Honestly, I'm not really arguing about this, I don't know, but it doesn't seem all that attractive to be another coin down the list of being merged with vert (which vert isn't even THAT popular either because of its gpu killing algo)

so you just kick the can down the road for a year and then what?
the 50 million market cap of X11 coins has already provided the incentive to make X11 ASICS viable and real.
there are already ASIC designs for multi algo chips that have 5 of the X11 algorithms. How hard could it be to add the circuits for the rest.
this is childsplay for chip design companies in china that can operate on a few million dollars a year.

merge mining solves the problem of A) attracting miners and B) keeping the network secure from 51% and timewarp attacks.
it also allows you to put up taxes because no miner is going to complain about higher taxes on coins they get for free while mining another coin....

the panic about ASICs is just that... PANIC and nothing else. hysteria is not a new phenomenon and anyone who knows about it understands that the last thing you should do is base financial and economic decisions on it.

I agree algo change might be a temporary fix, but in the current state, even a temporary fix is warranted. Should release 1 fork with algo change and NGW/digishield.

And I would say X11. There is a lot of fear of ASIC being released soon for new algos just because people fear it, not because of the viability. It needs to be profitable before even starting R&D to create an ASIC.  And we've all seen that R&D phase takes about 1 year , and another year to produce. Also the more an algo resembles general purpose comouting, the less attractive it is to develop one because the speed increase over GPU isn't as obvious. Therefor X11, even if it's the faster growing algo atm, it will need to become A LOT more mainstream before any thoughts of ASIC.

Another thing to consider, a lot of coins aren't doing so well right now because of the new flavor of the month thing, which currently is POS being multipooled. Right now 90% of them mines scrypt coins with the sole intent of being sold for something else, and emc2 has been feeding those.

Good thing is, those flavor of the months come and go, and people seem to start to be tired of trying to follow the next artificial hype, so the time for coins with real purpose will shine soon.

Received a response from the developers vertcoin.
They are ready to help change the algorithm scrypt-n and help with merge mining.
https://github.com/vertcoin/vertcoin/issues/22#issuecomment-43878866

I am not a miner and will never be, thus I am not really into the tech side of things when it comes to algos. I understand that changing the algo can be postive though, as srcypt is generally seen as backwards and the constant fear of asics (justified or not) is not doing good for any scrypt coin.

I will not take part in the detailled algo discussion very much, as my knowledge is pretty limited. However I want to point out that chaging the algo alone is not going to do much. Look at HIRO and GRS for example. HIRO had even the advantage of being one of the first X11 coins and - lets have a quick look at the performance: -80% over the last 4 weeks. GRS, as far as I understand, has a pretty unique algo and is dying. MYR has a creative algo (correct me if I am wrong), and I would not want to hold MYR right now. There are alot of new X11 coins coming out, they die right away. The only thing that gets attention is POS and the stupid anonymous transaction stuff.

Changing to another algo might still be a good thing, as it would show that alt least something is happening at emc2.

When it comes to exchanges, I would say Mintpal + poloniex.

we want x11

https://github.com/vertcoin/vertcoin/issues/22
https://vertcoin.org/team.html

Switched my miners off of Suprnova and received double payout within 24 hours. Fellow miners deserve to know about this.