Topic: Merged Mined Coins Association MeMiCA - page 2. (Read 8237 times)

I dunno. im pretty sure crowncoin was the one that had a bounty going for it and when i asked to work on it was told i was under qualified. Not much time on my hands at the moment either.

Ahmed

Hey ahmed,

Yeah - infernoman had a go at it, but it's unfinished:

https://github.com/Infernoman/Crowncoin--AUXPOW-

....I tried it out a few weeks ago......you gonna give it a shot?  

Didnt someone already do it for crowncoin? I know i helped out the person that did it.

Ahmed

Waiting for the response from him! Sure - a bounty is up for discussion! 

It would be nice to implement merged mining in Cubits3, especially nice given that we so far have no hybrid PoW/PoS coins in the merged SHA256 family.

-MarkM-

Hi crowncoin_knight,

Good to see you here - did you hear back from the dev who emailed you? It's beyond my capabilities I'm afraid, but maybe if you offered a bounty of some kind? 

Any dev who would be interested for the job? Please get back to me!

crowncoin.org

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anncrw-crown-sha256-platform-governance-systemnodes-masternodes-815487

Thanks phelix 

My thoughts exactly.

As long as there is no particular downside maybe we could stuff it into the next hardfork


@p3yot33at3r: +1 to p2pool

For what it's worth, I think anything that makes merge mine-able altcoins more compatible with Bitcoin & easier to integrate has got to be a good thing - it would certainly reduce the hours spent searching through code to see if it was capable of being merge mined, there seems to be a lack of information on many altcoin threads as to weather they are or not.

You're doing some great work btw domob - kudos! 

Bitcoin is currently working on ideas to use more bits of a block's version field for activation of soft forks.  In particular, they want to use individual bits of the version integer to signal particular soft forks currently progressing.  This may become a problem with the current merge-mining protocol, which reserves bit 8 and all bits starting at 16 of the version itself.  I think it would be a great advantage to preserve compatibility with Bitcoin, and allow using their code without too many specific changes.

Thus, I would like to encourage discussion about a potential change to the merge-mining protocol that frees all 32 bits of the version field of blocks.  A possible solution is the following:  Require that every block has an auxpow structure following the first 80 bytes of the block header.  (Currently this is only the case for blocks that indicate with their version that they are merge-mined.)  Additionally, the auxpow structure itself is changed to include the extra information (merge-mined flag and chain ID) that is currently in the version.  E. g., even if a block is not merge-mined, it would contain some additional data following the block header that indicates that the block is not merge-mined.

Thoughts?

Hi phelix,

No......

TBH I've never really seriously looked into the profitability side of it, for me it's all about bettering my Linux skills (or lack of  ) while helping give stability & security to a few altcoins that may one day be "worth" mining - a hobby. After all, if it's purely profit people are after then home mining is the wrong game to be in atm...... I just find it very interesting & want to promote crypto as much as possible, I believe it's the future in one form or another & despise the current "system".

Regarding the tutorial, I was working on an updated guide for noobs myself, but put it on hold due to the current network attack & problems with a couple of merge mined clients (HUC & XGG) - I didn't want people to think they had done something wrong when they hadn't, so decided to wait until those issues are fixed before publishing it.

I was also thinking of posting a comprehensive list of all merge mined SHA256 coins with updated info, coin links & repos etc for p2pool users to use - but have had to postpone this for the same reasons. although it would be preferable if the OP would do that in this thread I think......?

I see p2pool merge mining as the only way to stop the rot of large miner farm centralization & it's inherent problems, especially with all the scam pools popping up all over the place - so just want to increase new crypto miners awareness. Profit is not my driving force, thank goodness. I'm happy if I break even! 

Can you give a ball park percentage how much this increases your profit?

Is there a good tutorial on how to set up merge mining?

Heads up:


So, including BTC, I'm currently merge mining 11 coins 

BTC, DVC, FSC, HUC, I0C, IXC, NMC, GRP, UNO, CLC & WLC........any more for any more?

I never did get XGG to work properly with p2pool, memory usage went crazy, so if anyone has any hints/fixes - I'd like to make it 12........

Fun, fun, fun.

interesting thread

You're the rider

The bicycle is the economy

Bitcoin is the big gear



and here are all of the side chains


What the chain in the middle is, IS still up for debate

I finally managed to compile GeistGeld, for the hell of it, does anyone have any active nodes for it?

There is also Fusioncoin that can be merge mined - it's a bit dead, but not as dead as others mentioned in the OP & the blockchain is still active:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annfscfusioncoin-updated-arbitrary-message-decentralized-advertisement-512149

Crowncoin was also looking for a dev to help implement merge mining, but the dev seems to have gone AWOL, although the website & blockchain seem healthy & trading can still be done on C-CEX:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anncrw-crown-sha256-platform-governance-systemnodes-masternodes-815487

It would be nice to see a dev step in & maybe resurrect these coins with updated code, with BTC difficulty going up & price staying low, merge mining is an excellent way to increase ones mining earnings & help stabilise other less used crypto coins.

That seemed to do the trick.

    "version" : 80600,
    "protocolversion" : 70001,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : 0.00000000,
    "blocks" : 263078,
    "timeoffset" : -4,
    "connections" : 13,
    "proxy" : "",
    "difficulty" : 10660257161.44938087,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1433299834,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
    "errors" : ""

already have all those....

anyone have any nodes for ixc?