Topic: Multi-vPoW and Block "Tips" - Myriadcoin's Solution to Parasitic Merge Mining - page 2. (Read 3319 times)

So which coins can be merge mined already, and which coins (other than Doge) are due to fork in the near future to be part of polyMYR? Is there a master list somewhere with dates for when forks are due to happen?

None, the block hash is generated and can be solved by any of the algos. It's just a matter of difficulty vs hash power.

Thank you. Just stay tuned to Myriad and we'll let you know when PolyMYR is released where you can try this out.

I have done merged mining using blake-256, its really cool mining as usual, but you get what you mined, plus extra other alt coins
I think what you are proposing here could be the way of the future. What is the next step to get this going? I would like to try it out...I still have my settings for when I was mining Myriad using skein algo.

"I am quite avid though that Proof of Work alone with high rewards over time tends to hurt price so I am not quite sure how this should combat this because if you have something that will gain you proportionally more over time, you would have more of a tendency to hold on to it."

What is being gained proportionally more over time in this case? Myriadcoins? The child coins? Holding any coins is good for the price, is it not?

My idea revolves around the whole idea of removing the perception that merge mining does nothing but kill the price of the child coins. If we can still retain high network security (hashrate) while removing the real and perceived "dumping fest", we WIN and we can begin to use merge mining in much more creative ways than it's being used right now.



Solving merge-mining, experimenting with this idea and coming up with a proper balance between block rewards and block tips.
Bringing mining to developing worlds. We dont want to force people to have to just buy our coin to use it, we want them to mine it to. Bitcoin, unfortunately, has become a country club of mining. We want to reach areas that Bitcoin cannot.

Part of this initiative is fulfilled with our development of "Simplicity", a "two-click" wallet and mining software package that aims to remove ALL complicated/overwhelming/confusing aspects of setting up mining for the first time. Link to beta download is here: http://myriadplatform.org/simplicity/

We get lost in our little cryptobubble and forget how hard and complicated it is for people on the outside to understand. They want to be a part but cryptocurrencies cast an intimidating shadow that causes many to just forget it and go about their normal lives. Nuh-uh. Myriadcoin is aiming to make the on-ramp a little smoother.

"but it needs peer review as what determines the score - i.e. the score for the block randomization"

When you say block randomization, do you mean the lower block rewards given at seemingly random to the algorithms of child blockchains being merged mined by a parent?

If so, peer review would work...but I think what would be healthier is just trial and error. We release experimental coins or other developers give it a whirl and the free market will sort out what are proper balances for the real block rewards and merge-mining block rewards (which are more like block "tips")

It adds absolutely 0 extra in comparison to other coins of similar specs with single algorithms. MYR wont get bloated by merged mining its the child coins e.g. IXC, I0C, USC, DOGE which will have larger blockchains due to the merged-mining and the multi-algo even then wont make a difference

How does so many algo's tackle blockchain bloat? I would assume the extra hashes from just mono-merge mining would add a fair bit of bloat over time but mining over 4-5 algo's should then add a fair amount of extra bloat to the blockchain. What is Myriadcoin's growth in size per year?

We've already implemented it. Our coin is already Multi Algo and i've privately used merged-mining on the PolyMYR pool

Nice concept, but sounds really hard to implement...

again back to my Question its a possible beautiful answer but it needs peer review as what determines the score - i.e the score for the block randomization  - i assume its in the code - but can you point me to it link me for example put the link here.

this gon b so gud


I cant wait!!

I like the multi-symbiosis of Myriadcoin, I researched it a bit a few months ago and it's a good idea. By working on multi-algorithmic mining and merge mining, it opens more doors to different features in cross-chain transactions and securing many small networks. I am quite avid though that Proof of Work alone with high rewards over time tends to hurt price so I am not quite sure how this should combat this because if you have something that will gain you proportionally more over time, you would have more of a tendency to hold on to it.

What are some of the things that Myriadcoin wants to strive for over a long period?

Ah, fiat lux.

I had particular difficulty grounding the “child” and “parent” terms that you introduce. Neither is reliably inferable from “Dogecoin is implementing AuxPoW with any scrypt coin with higher hashrate than Dogecoin” or “we will enable the Dogecoin blockchain to accept auxiliary proof of work from other Scrypt chains”.

I understand your need to introduce a classification to set a context for your discussion of mooted changes to Myriad's operations but it doesn't work for me, rather the opposite - the metaphor is spurious given the implementation and it derailed my understanding of your proposal.

Cheers

Graham

What determines the child vs. the parent? This is something that a programmer could explain better (I don't code). It is something specific within the code.

The main difference is that pools can be set up for Litecoin miners to apply their same hashes to the Dogecoin blockchain and possibly solving both. You cannot do this the other way around--nobody can make a pool where Dogecoin hashes can be applied to Litecoin blocks. Therefore, Dogecoin is the "child" and Litecoin is the "parent". Whether or not these names for "who's on top" are really all that accurate is a different story, but it is sort of reverberated through the fact that Dogecoin needs to hardfork to become a child while Litecoin doesn't have to do anything (except set up pools).

One of the key things that the articles announcing the Dogecoin/Litecoin merge mining made a mistake with is that Litecoin is the only parent. Once Dogecoin becomes a child, ANY Scrypt blockchain can become a parent. This means Scrypt miners on Myriadcoin will be able to merge mine Dogecoin. It's not strictly limited to Litecoin.

I think you are confused still because your response confused me lol.

What do you mean by "easier transitioning from algo to algo?" What is the transitioning, who is doing the transitioning, and how is it easier?

Also, what "chaining effect" are you talking about precisely?

I just want to help you understand

I'd be grateful if you could you add a bit more detail to this assertion, in particular what determines the “child” / “parent” relationship.

I ask because my understanding of AuxPoW seems to be adrift, I managed to get a completely different impression from reading the Dogecoin statement.


Cheers

Graham

I have a question it doesn't directly relate to the topic but more to vPoW-
let me give you a scenario - :

is there an attack vector that exists here:

lets say we have for example 3 "algos"

1. Xa

2. Xb

3. Xc

now (in this world) - there is a beautiful community developed CPU and GPU miner for both

what this miner does is it can mine each of the 3 and choose the lowest diff of each -

is there a potential attack vector where the miner can "game" the next block i.e by jumping form aglo to aglo -

so exploited some how the way in which the next block is determined?

sorry for the newb question.

what i'm asking is:

what is the mechanism that determines the next block is it really random?

Thanks a lot! I'm not asking to invest, but what I am showing is that Myriadcoin could function as a security enhancement while simultaneously not killing the child coin's value. The child coin "tips" smaller block rewards that miners may use to sell if they wish, but not at the magnitude they would with normal block rewards. The child coin helps support the parent coin (Myriad) and the finances of the child coin may be re-invested into Myriad or they may be kept for investments.

I do think that if a solution for a child coin could be created whereby the child coins generated through merge mined could be staked by the merge miners, we would create an even better partnership between parent and child. Miners would have the option of dumping their "tips" or instead staking them and removing even more sell pressure from the market.

Updated visualization for multi-vPoW to include "block tips" concept for better understanding: