Topic: Optimized cpu-version - LTC/FBX/TBX - what's about merged mining of these 3? - page 2. (Read 3078 times)
December 23, 2011, 01:59:58 AM
Well, perhaps my understanding is realy flawed. I'll read more about it.
December 23, 2011, 12:45:21 AM
Mining LTC doesn't give you free TBX/FBX. Like I said your understanding of merged mining is flawed. Each chain is mined at its own difficulty. It is possible that TBX ends up more popular and has a higher difficulty.
You aren't mining X and getting Y free. You are taking a hash and checking that single hash against 2+ chains. Still even if TBX/FBS were "free". Who cares? What is the problem? They aren't free to an attacker who now has to contend with much higher difficulty.
You aren't mining X and getting Y free. You are taking a hash and checking that single hash against 2+ chains. Still even if TBX/FBS were "free". Who cares? What is the problem? They aren't free to an attacker who now has to contend with much higher difficulty.
December 23, 2011, 12:36:24 AM
[
First, your understanding of merged mining is flawed. Each chains solves its own blocks at its own difficulty.
Second the number of LTC isn't increased. It is like saying mining more copper increases the amount of gold in the world. Just because a single mine can extract both gold and copper doesn't somehow increase the gold supply.
First, your understanding of merged mining is flawed. Each chains solves its own blocks at its own difficulty.
Second the number of LTC isn't increased. It is like saying mining more copper increases the amount of gold in the world. Just because a single mine can extract both gold and copper doesn't somehow increase the gold supply.
If mining LTC gives u free TBX and FBX then difficulty of these currencies does not matter.
I know that limit of LTC is not changed. I just assumed that 1 block reward of TBX/FBX equals to 20% of LTC to simplify calculations.
December 22, 2011, 08:48:54 PM
Difficulty to solve a block depends on difficulty of "parent" coins. Children (TBX and FBX) mining is a side-effect. It would be equal to 70 coins reward per block if we counted that each block of TBX and FBX worth 10 LTC (for example). So why bother of "children" coins? Just switch from 50 LTC to 70 LTC reward! It's like multiplying all new coins to 1.4 coefficient ( =70/50 ). According to the design there must be only 84000000 LTC, but merged mining extends this limit to almost infinity (u can add more and more merged currencies). That's why I'm saying that merged mining breaks initial idea.
First, your understanding of merged mining is flawed. Each chains solves its own blocks at its own difficulty.
Second the number of LTC isn't increased. It is like saying mining more copper increases the amount of gold in the world. Just because a single mine can extract both gold and copper doesn't somehow increase the gold supply.
December 22, 2011, 03:17:59 PM
It's better for *coins to have an algorithm that requires as much resources as possible (relatively to difficulty). If you mine TBX and FBX for free then it's like having 0 difficulty.
Why is it better? Also why would you consider TBX/FBX free. Why not consider TBX & FBX as half the resources and LTC are "free".
Difficulty to solve a block depends on difficulty of "parent" coins. Children (TBX and FBX) mining is a side-effect. It would be equal to 70 coins reward per block if we counted that each block of TBX and FBX worth 10 LTC (for example). So why bother of "children" coins? Just switch from 50 LTC to 70 LTC reward! It's like multiplying all new coins to 1.4 coefficient ( =70/50 ). According to the design there must be only 84000000 LTC, but merged mining extends this limit to almost infinity (u can add more and more merged currencies). That's why I'm saying that merged mining breaks initial idea.
December 22, 2011, 02:54:31 PM
It's better for *coins to have an algorithm that requires as much resources as possible (relatively to difficulty). If you mine TBX and FBX for free then it's like having 0 difficulty.
Why is it better? Also why would you consider the cost of mining TBX/FBX as "free". Why not consider TBX & FBX as half the cost and LTC "free"?
December 22, 2011, 01:40:16 PM
Still not following, sorry.
December 22, 2011, 01:13:25 PM
It's better for *coins to have an algorithm that requires as much resources as possible (relatively to difficulty). If you mine TBX and FBX for free then it's like having 0 difficulty.
December 22, 2011, 01:00:33 PM
What the point to do merged mining? It's profanity of the idea.
Come again? December 22, 2011, 12:37:54 PM
Is it possible to do so, or has the code to be updated for this action of merged mining these 3?
What the point to do merged mining? It's profanity of the idea.
December 22, 2011, 12:06:28 PM
Sounds good to me... if only I were a programmer...
December 22, 2011, 09:52:50 AM
Well the code of any chain has to be modified to support merged mining.
If you use a master - slave model like BTC does then the "master" chain doesn't need to be modified. Pools supporting the merged mining will need to be modified to generate the proper coinbase transactions.
If you use a master - slave model like BTC does then the "master" chain doesn't need to be modified. Pools supporting the merged mining will need to be modified to generate the proper coinbase transactions.
so master/slave model:
LTC = BTC, then TBX- and FBX-code has to be modified.
December 22, 2011, 09:24:33 AM
Well the code of any chain has to be modified to support merged mining.
If you use a master - slave model like BTC does then the "master" chain doesn't need to be modified. Pools supporting the merged mining will need to be modified to generate the proper coinbase transactions.
If you use a master - slave model like BTC does then the "master" chain doesn't need to be modified. Pools supporting the merged mining will need to be modified to generate the proper coinbase transactions.
December 22, 2011, 09:00:01 AM
This is a good question.
December 22, 2011, 08:56:48 AM
Is it possible to do so, or has the code to be updated for this action of merged mining these 3?
Jump to: