Topic: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Hardfork block 1042000 - Merge Mine w/BTC! - page 492. (Read 1047042 times)

he's probably reading and one day make an appearance. Or maybe something happened to him 

 One guy opinion is missing from very long time. Where is our V500 

We can use reddit more often actually.

  
  " Bryce brought it up because he wants us to talk about it. It's no secret that he hates BCT "  

-that's not a excuse

 Yeah I hate BCT to ,but love a  unobtanium talk. And watch it every day.

I believe Bryce reading us sometime from time to time....but show up here man!

BTW  This BCT is too overweight. Very often is unavailable lately! Maybe we need to think for unoforum that is separated in the future as  option.  

would require :

-DUO has different metrics and also different rewardstructure
-multicoinwallet does not break backwards copatibility of the current wallet
(then i'd be more than happy)

+1, if possible

Actually Brilliant.

Relaunch DUO
1. AUXPOW (so you can mine any sha256 and DUO)
2. or you can mine Doge/Lite and DUO
3. The basemoney is snap-shot of UNO ... so if you hold UNO at that time you get DUO equity
4. Factor the sidechain thing into DUO
5. Multi-Coin wallet ... it holds both UNO or DUO ... and future coins too
6. Hardliners are happy UNO code is not fork'd, tweaked, nor the chain bloated.

Wow, what great conversation! I don't know if it's possible, but can somebody record the chat with mr. Weiner. I have to go into a meeting and will not be able to be any part of it.

true. Will we accept Mpcoin or Gavincoin? (this question is not a joke)

If Uno was "shared mined" (ok merged mined) with Bitcoin, let them fork. Who cares, besides the miners. It doesn't make any difference to Uno. The hashes that solve Uno blocks would still be good.

reading; reading

currently there is only the risk of the question arising with the hardfork without consenus on btc: which 'Bitcoin'? Gavincoin or Mpcoin? Man, there is some potential real chaos on the horizon for btc if you ask me. It could potentially become unsafe to accept merged blocks from btc chain after the harfork of btc. So i am not so sure about it.

There's a lot of unease and many people shouting at each other over at btc. I think there's a fair chance it's not going to end well. Lot's of movement and heated discussion over at camp bitcoin.

(remember the titanic - they also said it would be unsinkable)

Lets be clear that Merged Mining is not a merger with BTC.

Shared mining would be more accurate, but alas, someone long ago used the term "merged mining" and so we're stuck with it.

All we're doing with shared-mining (ok, merged mining) is allowing miners to find blocks for multiple coins, simultaneously. Their hashes can find blocks on Uno, Bitcoin, Nmc, I0C and other coins. It doesn't change anything with the coin, just secures the Uno blockchain by raising the difficulty immensely. It makes all miners more profitable, and protects Uno from uncertainty as the block reward continues to halve on schedule.

+1
i would currently also not be up for a hardfork even for merge mining because in case bitcoin bites the dust due to the hardfork without consensus (i think at least 30% chance for that) or because investors just scratch their head and want out because of that and it crashes and burns we will only grow with that chaos around bitcoin. Right now the situation is much different than it was when we last time discussed it. So right now i would vote against any hardfork.



yes, betatest please
Snapshot uno for merge coin is maybe a good idea (on the other side wouldn't that mean we would have a mirror of it? Do we want a twin-coin? Isn't there a risk to dilute Uno value? That needs to be thought about.) - or other idea we can make a snapshot of uno and have a let's say 5% premine of the new coin and that get's distributed according to snapshot but the coin should have very different metrics (more coins for example) ... there's some ideas there to discover.

All in all i think: sidechains can't do even half as good as a merged mined coin. What about launching a new chain like DUO and implement sidechains there aswell as AUXPOW? I would support such a coin a lot - it would bring hash, bryce can play with sidechains, uno doesn't need to fork, we have good publicity, everyone is happy as it only brings benefit and almost no risk in case the experiment fails only the other chain fails. It would also be fun to speculate on it. I  wouldn't want it to have in uno and hardfork and all that shenangians and useless risks. Please create a new coin for the sidechain experiment and auxpow it against uno and give Uno holders a 5% premine according to their uno holdings! (isn't this idea just brilliant?)

@gustav

Personal Opinion of Me

Merger with BTC ... yes but not until the rewards are much much lower (say 18 months).  BUT if the current UNO trend continues we'll be at $300 UNO and 9000TH/s ... so why merge?

Sidechains ... http://insidebitcoins.com/news/gregory-maxwell-demo-sidechains-to-be-available-in-a-few-months/29531 ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE_elgnIw3M ... still not sure what a sidechain is ... is Namecoin a sidechain?  If anyone makes a good arguement then ... okay maybe.  But best to let other Coins beta-test this one, no?

I am for snap shots.  And then merge-mine that new coin with UNO.  This does not bloat the UNO chain and it gives equity to UNO holders.  Too me this is much more interesting.  The tech is not new it is just the bitcoin code (so not buggy like NXT/NEM/QoRA/ or the much hyped but not existant Ether).  The 'new' part is creating a 'multicoin wallet' ... plus smart asset designs ... THUS this is the path of least resistance to making UNO a platform like NXT, BTS, CP, Master.  The hard part is creating sound assets but this is non-technical.  


sorry old dogs ... and it looks like Gustav had #1 on #300 ... but ... "2 kilos for first new guy"
@IMZ ...  tertius993? no?

https://cryptap.us/uno/richlist/ ... cryptapus is doing greatwork! shoulda said first guy to post productive work gets the 2 kilos

i have a the following concerns about SC:

-I heard there's the possibility of a sidechain overtaking the main chain and make it worthless in the process. Why do we want that on UNO?

-some people say sidechains would end bitcoin.

- why do we need assets on UNO chain? So others (scammers) can abuse it without even holding many UNO? We have no way of blocking people from abusing it once it's  implemented. (it's actually providing a service for outsiders who actually don't even hold uno currently - not many uno will be demanded only for the utility of SC as they are probably cheap to purchase(under 1 UNO))

-bloat

-complexity

- i don't see why miners would mine sidechains as they do not reward them - only ad work for them (so why would a sidechain bring more hashpower? I don't think that's the case. Contrary it just ads more work for the miners without additional reward)

- I don't see what a sidechain should be able to do that an seperate altchain can't do

i would have more ... seriously. Do it in Diraq and Bitcoin first. I  hope we are not going to hardfork for that hype-of-the-week-experiment.

For me sidechains are a fear-driven invention for bitcoin. Uno is better than bitcoin. We aren't scared of competition like btc.

+1
fully agree
I am currently educating myself again on sidechains to be qualified for questions on deep level. Bryce announced an AMA on reddit about it.
I agree, changes like this can't happen without the investors on board - if we are not happy, nobody is happy.
In any case: sidechains aren't even ready soon - will take more months. (so thank god, it's not going to be rushed)
I am right now preparing many questions for the AMA and Bryce. There is a lot of questions about it from my side. The AMA is going to be interesting.

In any case i wouldn't be ready to agree on any of this without getting an opinion from Blazr2

thanks for giving opinion, prominer

Hey ProminerOne,

I think we should discuss and learn about sidechains and how it could benefit Uno.  Bryce brought it up because he wants us to talk about it.

It's no secret he hates BCT, as much as he loves Uno. When I see him tweet something interesting I put it here for you guys.  You're always welcome to talk to him on @bryceweiner
He's pretty chatty on Twitter.  I have periodic contact with Bryce by eMail. He's always been responsive to my questions.  I haven't heard from Blazr2 for awhile, but I trust that he's still around watching over uno.

Bryce's last response to me when I emailed him recently about sidechains:
"Here's the sidechain white paper. I think it will answer your questions and then some. :-)
 
http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf "

I've been sorting through it. It introduces a whole new world of possibilities for moving assets between blockchains.  I encourage you all to find an hour to sit and read it, then read it again. I'm still not an expert on sidechains, but from what I understand so far, I think there could be a huge opportunity here.

One of the things I love about this community is that I keep getting pushed to learn and educate myself. I'm always learning something. Read through that document and lets pick up the discussion. If you read it, you'll know what I know.

Sidechains as I understand  it, could be transformational to crypto. The "old" Satoshi model is 1 coin = 1 blockchain, and you need to have a risky intermediary to change the value of one coin into another coin, or one asset into another asset.  It challenges us to rethink what crypto could be.  In the case of Uno, what makes it valuable? Is that Uno is tethered to a blockchain (lots of junk coins are, so can't be that alone), or is it everything else that Uno is?  Should uno be bound and tethered to it's own blockchain island so that it's value can only be converted through risky exchanges?  Or, might sidechains bring the opportunity to seamlessly exchange it's value across multiple assets? And if so, what sort of arbitrage opportunities might that provide?  I am still learning about sidechains, but my take away so far is that if sidechains for Uno are ever implemented, you will really, really, really want to be holding Uno before the sidechain is implemented. I think that everything that makes me love Uno, its essence, would be carried forward. It would still be Uno, still rare and fair. Read the paper and I think it will become clear why Uno might be a great candidate as a sidechain.

Someone has done some tinkering, recently, to see how to get coins off of Megawallet.  Took hundreds off of there, and redistributed (sold) a majority of this to other exchanges, greatly improving UNO distribution, and thus health.

For example, you can't send Cryptsy 200 coins and then withdraw them, again, because that just drains your own hotter wallet on Cryptsy.  Basically, maybe at least 100 UNO must be purchased off of existing orders, bid or ask, but better (higher probability of Megawallet drawdown) from the ask, and then maybe it will withdraw from Megawallet, but it usually does, really.  (I suppose if you've had 100 or more UNO on Cryptsy for ~9+? months, pulling them off the exchange might work to draw down Megawallet, too.)

There definitely are different characteristics of traders that have orders that fill and result in Megawallet withdrawals when pulled off of the exchange, so we know Megawallet has many 'owners'.  Also, since we've been in the 0.008's, the Megawallet 'owners' have been very well behaved.  Potato traders are apparently going extinct.  

The takeaway from all of this is that UNO is quite healthy despite Megawallet; we've drawn down thousands of UNO off of Megawallet in recent times, and expect it to whittle down smaller and smaller over proximate months; and the conclusion is the same as always:  Buy coin on Cryptsy, often at a discount and in greater volume than are available on other exchanges, and TAKE THEM OFF OF THE EXCHANGE.

One might even be glad that there is still a place you can go to for buying 100's of UNO.

Megawallet?  Oh, we cool.  

 Hi everyone! Here what I think :

Firstly I don't see  we discussed enough the sidechains think and we don't have enough opinions here to take any decisions!  

From what I see seems to me that Bryce wants and planning to do some changes on uno, without consensus with the community. Are we?I don't think we given to him any agreement to do now hard changes, side chains,forks or anything else!  Unobtanium is community driven material and Bryce must should serve and listen the community on first place! But how is even possible that he is our DEV and he never show up here in this forum even once?  I DO NOT like this and this methods of work !  Maybe Bryce is professional or crypto genius,but he got zero communication with Uno community!!!!! Twitter is not count! And i am sure BW not gonna show up here in the future!!!?
Blazr2 is missing to -to give competent advice as the original father of Uno!

FalingKnife please give us more information about your contacts and conversation information with Bryce if you have one lately. I want to see opinion from Blazr2 before we to decide to do any changes or zero changes first!

We are good on our own. We are sha256 ,but must stay totally separate from any other blokchein. We are totally different story! - merge mining Yes but maybe later! Security gonna come naturally with the price. Sidechains I don't think so! We stay pure and lite and simple as possible!

Nobody can touch Unobtanium without our /the community/ consent! And guys don't rush things.