I wonder if it would be possible for the bitcoin clients (assuming a majority) to hurt the namecoins with merged mining... ?
Topic: Monetary economics of merged mining, aux blockchains. (inflation by proxy?) (Read 2972 times)
August 27, 2011, 02:18:12 PM
August 26, 2011, 03:44:21 AM
2) Bitcoin difficulty will rise in the short term due to the new miners coming from the namecoin chain.
2: No. Total hashrate for namecoin right now is something like 30Ghash, not enough to have any kind of impactSo you mean, "Yes, but not in a meaningful way".
3) The bitcoin value will be equal (or higher if the increased difficulty also increases adoption).
3: No. Bitcoin value would dip somewhat as speculators traded them for namecoins, and then namecoin hoarders cashed out their bitcoins.I guess you're right, but speculators could put dollars into namecoin instead of bitcoins. Only if they "quit speculating with bitcoins" for speculating with namecoins btc losses value.
5) The diffuculty/value of both currencies will rise.
5: No. Namecoin value would rise but not by a vast amount. Bitcoin value would fall.Bitcoin value could fall or not. Only speculators leaving bitcoin will make its value fall.
Namecoin value will rise proportionally to the increase in acceptance that the increase in difficulty produces (Plus the effect of speculators).
August 25, 2011, 02:49:39 PM
The costs of mining will be shared between mining bitcoins and mining namecoins, but the value of both currencies is not only determined by difficulty but b adoption. The bigger the difference in adoption between bitcoin and namecoin, the bigger the difference in their share of the mining costs.
But bitcoin doesn't have to necessarily lose value, the difficulty can rise to include the namecoin value in the mining costs. I think that is what is going to more likely happen, since all the namecoin miners will start to mine bitcoin too.
My predictions:
1) Namecoin difficulty will rise until eventually equals bitcoin's.
2) Bitcoin difficulty will rise in the short term due to the new miners coming from the namecoin chain.
3) The bitcoin value will be equal (or higher if the increased difficulty also increases adoption).
4) The namecoin value will rise because the increase in difficulty will be huge and will increase namecoin adoption for sure.
5) The diffuculty/value of both currencies will rise.
So I don't see anything wrong with merged mining. It allows other currencies to compete with bitcoin for adoption in a symbiotic fashion (not competing for cpu/gpgpu resources). Much more healthier than miners switching from one chain to another.
But bitcoin doesn't have to necessarily lose value, the difficulty can rise to include the namecoin value in the mining costs. I think that is what is going to more likely happen, since all the namecoin miners will start to mine bitcoin too.
My predictions:
1) Namecoin difficulty will rise until eventually equals bitcoin's.
2) Bitcoin difficulty will rise in the short term due to the new miners coming from the namecoin chain.
3) The bitcoin value will be equal (or higher if the increased difficulty also increases adoption).
4) The namecoin value will rise because the increase in difficulty will be huge and will increase namecoin adoption for sure.
5) The diffuculty/value of both currencies will rise.
So I don't see anything wrong with merged mining. It allows other currencies to compete with bitcoin for adoption in a symbiotic fashion (not competing for cpu/gpgpu resources). Much more healthier than miners switching from one chain to another.
1: Yes.
2: No. Total hashrate for namecoin right now is something like 30Ghash, not enough to have any kind of impact
3: No. Bitcoin value would dip somewhat as speculators traded them for namecoins, and then namecoin hoarders cashed out their bitcoins.
4: Yes.
5: No. Namecoin value would rise but not by a vast amount. Bitcoin value would fall.
August 21, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
The costs of mining will be shared between mining bitcoins and mining namecoins, but the value of both currencies is not only determined by difficulty but b adoption. The bigger the difference in adoption between bitcoin and namecoin, the bigger the difference in their share of the mining costs.
But bitcoin doesn't have to necessarily lose value, the difficulty can rise to include the namecoin value in the mining costs. I think that is what is going to more likely happen, since all the namecoin miners will start to mine bitcoin too.
My predictions:
1) Namecoin difficulty will rise until eventually equals bitcoin's.
2) Bitcoin difficulty will rise in the short term due to the new miners coming from the namecoin chain.
3) The bitcoin value will be equal (or higher if the increased difficulty also increases adoption).
4) The namecoin value will rise because the increase in difficulty will be huge and will increase namecoin adoption for sure.
5) The diffuculty/value of both currencies will rise.
So I don't see anything wrong with merged mining. It allows other currencies to compete with bitcoin for adoption in a symbiotic fashion (not competing for cpu/gpgpu resources). Much more healthier than miners switching from one chain to another.
But bitcoin doesn't have to necessarily lose value, the difficulty can rise to include the namecoin value in the mining costs. I think that is what is going to more likely happen, since all the namecoin miners will start to mine bitcoin too.
My predictions:
1) Namecoin difficulty will rise until eventually equals bitcoin's.
2) Bitcoin difficulty will rise in the short term due to the new miners coming from the namecoin chain.
3) The bitcoin value will be equal (or higher if the increased difficulty also increases adoption).
4) The namecoin value will rise because the increase in difficulty will be huge and will increase namecoin adoption for sure.
5) The diffuculty/value of both currencies will rise.
So I don't see anything wrong with merged mining. It allows other currencies to compete with bitcoin for adoption in a symbiotic fashion (not competing for cpu/gpgpu resources). Much more healthier than miners switching from one chain to another.
August 21, 2011, 07:15:24 AM
If there is no change to the bitcoin protocol and client software I can't see why this is a trojan horse at all.
If it's more profitable for miners to run merged mining then that's fine, and in fact will strengthen bitcoin.
Some chose to mine some "lesser" but currently more profitable whatevercoin instead of bitcoin, but now they
don't have to. Then mining power that would otherwise be lost is retained and even new mining power may be added due
to higher profits to miners.
For whatevercoin to have success however it needs to solve a real problem. Namecoin does that. Crapcoin and shittycoin doesn't.
I sure don't like bloating the chain with crap , but if the profits are there for the miner, it should mean the utility to people is there too.
August 19, 2011, 08:44:09 PM
Well this could result in a war if people decide to modify the bitcoin client to look for any extra data and reject these blocks, which would essentially break the protocol.
So I think there is nothing anybody can do anything about it.
I personally think this is a great idea, there could be many services doing the same thing. But wouldn't that make the whole system less secure? Since anything that reduces difficulty in any way reduces security?
An Attacker could attempt to get "something" easier.
PS: I will try it once it comes out, and will not sell a single namecoin for bitcoin
No way out, haters gonna hate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSsCqH37CNk
So I think there is nothing anybody can do anything about it.
I personally think this is a great idea, there could be many services doing the same thing. But wouldn't that make the whole system less secure? Since anything that reduces difficulty in any way reduces security?
An Attacker could attempt to get "something" easier.
PS: I will try it once it comes out, and will not sell a single namecoin for bitcoin
No way out, haters gonna hate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSsCqH37CNk
August 19, 2011, 07:16:39 PM
Bitcoin King sounds like Burger King. :
Merged mining is an application example of Mike Hearn's "shared work" concept, a core bitcoin dev. iirc ... how exactly is that a "trojan horse" ... delivered by the bitcoin devs? Doesn't make sense ... but it makes a good story, liked that bit.
Ultimately, it makes clear that all this mining power bitcoin has captured/created is very mobile, mercenary and for hire to the highest bidder.
For now, the highest bidder is the chained currency that has the widest adoption, but this will be continuously judged upon merits as new pretenders and competitors come and go ... long live the chain wars.
August 19, 2011, 02:04:05 PM
I appreciate your answer and Yes, I can see it clearer now. Thanks for the links.
Also appreciate the metaphor from Virgil, which goes to show that people do not really change much of their nature through the ages.
I was wondering about the end results of this "merged mining" approach and came to the conclusion that it will probably kill the value of Namecoins, since there will be so much more supply relative to demand.
Namecoins got f***ed because of a simple price discrepancy for a few days. Some people made a few extra BTC (including myself) but very few seem to be really interested in having them for some real use (90% drop in mining capacity after last difficulty increase). Now the next difficulty adjustment will be in December. This incident shows that they don't really stand a chance as they are now, even if they start merged mining sometime soon.
I did consider that a Namecoin-based system might be very useful as a replacement for land and real estate registry in the distant future, but this is a far-fetched idea.
Also appreciate the metaphor from Virgil, which goes to show that people do not really change much of their nature through the ages.
I was wondering about the end results of this "merged mining" approach and came to the conclusion that it will probably kill the value of Namecoins, since there will be so much more supply relative to demand.
Namecoins got f***ed because of a simple price discrepancy for a few days. Some people made a few extra BTC (including myself) but very few seem to be really interested in having them for some real use (90% drop in mining capacity after last difficulty increase). Now the next difficulty adjustment will be in December. This incident shows that they don't really stand a chance as they are now, even if they start merged mining sometime soon.
I did consider that a Namecoin-based system might be very useful as a replacement for land and real estate registry in the distant future, but this is a far-fetched idea.
August 19, 2011, 12:00:35 PM
.
August 19, 2011, 10:32:10 AM
Two words about shared mining I have for you:
"Trojan horse"
Well... and one picture:
"Trojan horse"
Well... and one picture:
Vladimir, since I value your opinion, can I ask you to explain what you mean? I know all about the story of the horse, and the modern use of phrase in computerspeak, but what are you saying behind that?
August 19, 2011, 06:03:46 AM
Yes there going to be inflation because namecoins and bitcoins will have similar properties. It doesn't matter which to use for trading. So rates of BTC and NMC will be equal.
"Yes there is going to be inflation because db-paper and dollars will have similar properties. It doesn't matter which to use for trading. So rates of db-paper and dollars will be equal."?
I'm offering to sell you 200 namecoin for 100 bitcoin in a months time (or whenever shared mining starts). You'll double your money! Deal?
August 19, 2011, 05:52:12 AM
Yes there going to be inflation because namecoins and bitcoins will have similar properties. It doesn't matter which to use for trading. So rates of BTC and NMC will be equal.
August 19, 2011, 05:50:21 AM
Isn't this introducing a mechanism for ultimately doubling the number of *coins hooked onto the bitcoin hash power,
Yes.
i.e. inflation by proxy?
Not at all. It just means the other coins get as double-spend-proof as bitcoin. Compare with paper currencies; they are always 100% double-spend-proof but that and the fact that anyone can print their own paper currency doesn't mean inflation of the established paper currencies.
August 19, 2011, 04:15:50 AM
... and for someone who is not already mining bitcoins?
You seem to be using the socialist definition of "free".
hopefully we will find out soon what merged mining will bring with some experimental fork August 19, 2011, 04:07:30 AM
... and for someone who is not already mining bitcoins?
You seem to be using the socialist definition of "free".
August 19, 2011, 04:02:51 AM
[...]
An auxiliary chain with a difficulty nearly equal to bitcoin clearly has a cost-to-mine also nearly equal to bitcoin. [...]
[...]
I'd say the cost is almost 0 --> auxiliary coin value --> 0An auxiliary chain with a difficulty nearly equal to bitcoin clearly has a cost-to-mine also nearly equal to bitcoin. [...]
[...]
It is only zero IFF you are already mining bitcoins, which obviously is not zero cost. So, no, cost does not go to zero.
Try again.
Well if you can not see that it costs to be set-up and mining bitcoins to begin with then I probably can't help you much in understanding anything further. Thanks for trying though.
you do not seem to get it: for someone who is already mining bitcoins merged mining means free namecoins.
August 19, 2011, 03:32:54 AM
[...]
An auxiliary chain with a difficulty nearly equal to bitcoin clearly has a cost-to-mine also nearly equal to bitcoin. [...]
[...]
I'd say the cost is almost 0 --> auxiliary coin value --> 0An auxiliary chain with a difficulty nearly equal to bitcoin clearly has a cost-to-mine also nearly equal to bitcoin. [...]
[...]
It is only zero IFF you are already mining bitcoins, which obviously is not zero cost. So, no, cost does not go to zero.
Try again.
Well if you can not see that it costs to be set-up and mining bitcoins to begin with then I probably can't help you much in understanding anything further. Thanks for trying though.
August 19, 2011, 03:23:57 AM
[...]
An auxiliary chain with a difficulty nearly equal to bitcoin clearly has a cost-to-mine also nearly equal to bitcoin. [...]
[...]
I'd say the cost is almost 0 --> auxiliary coin value --> 0An auxiliary chain with a difficulty nearly equal to bitcoin clearly has a cost-to-mine also nearly equal to bitcoin. [...]
[...]
It is only zero IFF you are already mining bitcoins, which obviously is not zero cost. So, no, cost does not go to zero.
Try again.
August 18, 2011, 06:51:39 PM
[...]
An auxiliary chain with a difficulty nearly equal to bitcoin clearly has a cost-to-mine also nearly equal to bitcoin. [...]
[...]
I'd say the cost is almost 0 --> auxiliary coin value --> 0An auxiliary chain with a difficulty nearly equal to bitcoin clearly has a cost-to-mine also nearly equal to bitcoin. [...]
[...]
It is only zero IFF you are already mining bitcoins, which obviously is not zero cost. So, no, cost does not go to zero.
Try again.
August 18, 2011, 06:08:23 AM
Two words about shared mining I have for you:
"Trojan horse"
Well... and one picture:
"Trojan horse"
Well... and one picture:
Jump to: