Topic: [ANNOUNCE] SolidCoin - new and improved block chain. Secure from pools - page 13. (Read 85528 times)

SIGH!     Why the FUD?

Everybody, if you haven't already, please read this simple description of merged mining (MM).  See also the design that it's based on.

No, you get only BTC.  You base much of your argument on this misapprehension.  Please go read up on MM and tell me if you still think I'm wrong.

I don't know where you get your numbers, but I can't see how a code change to accept MM would lead to a generation rate increase any more dramatic than what SC has already experienced.  It would take a while before most of the BTC network adds SC.  As CoinHunter is quick to point out, SC has handled hash rate swings well thus far.  Without merged mining, though, I can promise that SC will experience Namecoin-like hash rate swings based on price/difficulty versus BTC.  StableCoin's improved retargeting algorithm would help, but I predict 95-99% hash rate decreases in a matter of minutes, much greater than the "400%" mentioned so often by CoinHunter.

Price has to do with perception, so it is not an easy call.  But if you mean that MM would flood the market with SC, then I don't think so.  Fortunately, Namecoin is set to test the question, if it ever reaches block 24,000, so we'll see who is right.

I'm not sure what difference you see that makes MM right for one and not the other.  If you mean SC should let Namecoin be the guinea pig, I see some wisdom in conservatism, yes.  But long-term, there will be MM currencies, and the market will choose MM or non-MM, leaving the losing side to convert or wither.

No, merged mining does not link difficulties.  It's quite clever.  I'll wait while you read up on it. 

Exactly, but backwards.  In the absence of merged mining, as is happening to Namecoin, many miners will hop from currency to currency based on fluctuating price/difficulty ratios.  This hurts both currencies by increasing opportunities for 51% attacks and messing with block generation rates--albeit less so thanks to SC's innovation in that area.  With merged mining, miner configurations remain stable (as in StableCoin) and all currencies benefit from greater security.

Quite so.

Speaking of decentralized cheat-detection, there are some really clever ways of detecting overall cheating, if a cheater can be detected independently by a node connected to it; chip accuracy verification in arrays of chips capable of testing one another is the last incarnation I've seen of a solution to a puzzle that was first published back in.. like the 1980s by a wonderfully clever mathematician who thought he was just solving an old word puzzle. And it, and dozens of special variations of it, are showing up everywhere. I keep seeing it implemented all over the damn place. :-)

They are but the address is a random number and a new one is used every time.

If that wasn't true we'd know exactly how many coins different miners made. And then if they spent them at one single place that would "tell" we might have real info about them. And we'd know how much computing power they had.

Yep, see the SC/bitcent parity thread in Speculation. Apparently it's "a faster, edgier coin".

Very interesting how the 6 month BTC chart looks very similar to the 6 day SC chart......

did anybody here noticed that?

Merged mining = rapid increase of coins mined until price decreases to near-worthless. This is because to maximize profit, the entire bitcoin network will mine solidcoin until the difficulty reaches 0.3x bitcoin difficulty, when it will balence itself out. This is nowhere near close to happening, and solidcoin will slow down the difficulty increase, which means that you will add in effect more than the size of the current economy.

Do you understand the concept of "50 coins per block"? Why are you talking about adding 10M coins??

You forget that BTC has also learned the lessons. It's not just SC having the advantage of lessons learned. You also are not taking into account the networking effect. All current bitcoin users/investors/merchants have incentives to make bitcoin successful and not adopt another currency. It would be really hard for SC to overcome this network effect. Hard but not impossible. As an example of this networking effect, Google Plus will have a hard time overtaking Facebook. But Facebook has overtaken MySpace because it was drastically better. So if SC is drastically better than BTC, then yes it has a shot. But right now, SC is only marginally better than BTC, if you don't put any value in the new attack that's possible with the new targeting algorithm.

The issue with this is that Bitcoin is not affected, but solidcoin is. It's a one-way path:

I find block that only meets BTC difficulty. I get BTC and SC.
I find block that only meets SC difficulty. I only get SC.
More solidcoin are produced than bitcoin - until SC difficulty * 3.333 becomes higher than BTC difficulty
Then, merged miners would produce 3 times more pure-solidcoin blocks than bitcoin-blocks, and then you have the competition

If price remains constant, before the stablization, 30% more coins will be mined preety much constantly (until solidcoin difficulty becomes comparable to bitcoin difficulty), dropping the price by more and more every day. Solidcoin difficulty adjustment CANNOT keep up with a 30% increase in hashing power until difficulty stablizes, causing supply to grow until price decreases. The time it takes to reach near-zero is dependent on the amount of buyers.

Bitcoin are also not "useful". If we added 10M bitcoin to the economy today, price WILL drop to zero.

The price won't drop to 0 if the coins are useful
So yes you're right, the proce will drop to 0

+1 Merged mining at this point only makes sense with namecoin to me.

I agree with dree12.

Can anyone explain how merged mining would NOT drop the price down to 0?

All merged mining would do is skyrocket solidcoin difficulty above bitcoin difficulty, except taking a long, long time to do so. An increase of supply of that size will also drop sc price below ixcoin or even i0coin price! I do not support merged mining for any cryptocurrency - it simply doubles the chance of disaster.

1. Merged mining.
2. Merged mining.
3. Alert user if nethash drops by c. 50%... oops! this happened already.  See #1.
4. Merged mining.
5. Tighten timestamp accuracy requirement.  Make miners run ntpd.
6. Design a new getwork/pool protocol that gives clients/members control of policy.
7. Alert user if a reorg with many hidden or old blocks occurs.

Pardon me if SC already does any of these.

@zebedee
I agree, but I already see that people will connect SolidCoin ( or any other bitcoion fork ) fault as a Bitcoin fault

Coblee - I think you're wasting your breath.

Satoshi was really very smart and chose the parameters he did very carefully.  Including the free-market based mining fee.

If others cannot see why things were done the way they were, let them find out.  The hard way.  The lessons will be learned better through bitter experience than through endless threads on a message board.

There are good reasons the alternates have not managed to stay much above one or two percent of a BTC.  I don't see that changing any time soon.

You should check the VeriSign thread over in the main forum then. I'm on a roll today.

Which is on meh wallpaper btw HEHE I still lolz from that

IN THEORY, yes. However, there would be very easy ways to defeat it, it would require very heavy modification of the way the protocols for mining work now, and it would almost completely destroy the anonymity of miners. Making it harder to defeat would require having all mining be centralized, which right there destroys almost every benefit this type of currency system has in relation to alternatives if you want to treat it as digital cash.

Preserving anonymity and resisting centralization makes it pretty much impossible to have it set up to have the kind of rules we'd need to prevent >51% and similar attacks.