Topic: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Hardfork block 1042000 - Merge Mine w/BTC! - page 527. (Read 1047042 times)

I honestly think merged mining would dilute the UNO brand. We should be spreading our marketing message in other ways.

I've merge mined on Bitminter but soon left after the price of Bitcoin crashed -hence leaving ole' Namecoin nameless! I'd hate to see the same for UNO.

It's a shame we can accelerate the last bunch of coins to 250k and END the POW phase for UNO early. The network would still be secured as a good community ALWAYS stay around once the miners have exited.

Did you know that with some radioactive elements the half life has been shown to REVERSE? Why not the same for UNO? Accelerate it towards it's end! Let's call it a REVERSE HALF LIFE - the first coin to do so! Not all of nature adheres to negative entropy. It has been shown to reverse in certain cases. I think it could do for UNO as an element too. It's also a much EASIER fork!!

Just my noob thoughts!...0.00312...0.00625....0.1250...0.2500....

These freaks running the show can do whatever they want.  They have an unlimited list of tricks.  Anything can happen.   

G'night!   

"Honestly, I'm not concerned about UNO's future price, anymore."

Neither I.

Your thoughts on bullion this year would interest me. Perhaps they'll stay unreasonably low for a couple of months more, then I just can't see how prices will not 'break out.' [And I've been looking for data on rigs in N. Dakota. Various mentions -- none good -- but no actual stats]

m

Never happened, as the primary account was on Mintpal, and a few other reasons I cited in the de-brief at the end of the 1st Annual Blue Crypto Award thread.  Thanks goodness nobody sent DOGE, or I would have had to cover that one, too!  I had all the donation addresses on Mintpal, (except for the udonate UNO addy, which has never left offline cold storage,) which was the best exchange we had at the time, IMHO.  What can you do? [shrug]  Well, I covered all losses with my own funds, so it's not a reflection on my reputation.  (Had to include that, in case someone cuts in halfway through a conversation.)

I better go to sleep, now....

-

Anyway, the community funded UNO buy support was always a token gesture.  Buying 100 UNO 80% below market value, broken up across exchanges, doesn't really affect the price.  I just wanted to say we did it, to get a new model started.

Honestly, I'm not concerned about UNO's future price, anymore.  I think we'll be good ad infinitum, even once the evil ones really start to play their games, like they do with BTC and gold and silver, etc., so I don't think my model is even essential, anymore.  Maybe for some other crypto or something.  lol.

-

The simplest and best model that nobody will ever do is this:  For a crypto X with a market cap of $100,000, you have $100,000 on it's X/$USD trading pairs as buy orders across exchanges in proportion to average volume.  Then, it will be overtly 100% covered at it's design market cap.

Now take it from there....and dillute value with whatever model you do come up with.

All JIMHO.  I'm not really an economist.

So UNO merge mining is worthwhile because it adds hash to the network while rewarding miners with other coins as a byproduct bonus for the same amount of work they do now.

More hash is more hash, but is the amount significant enough?  What is the target hash rate range for UNO?

I agree UNO should be independent from BTC merge unless it is obviously needed.  At what point would that be?? 

If it takes a year to implement UNO merge mining - so be it.  What's the estimated time it will take to implement UNO merge mining after deciding the way to go about it?

How to go about it??  What do miners want?  I'm not a miner.

"community-funded UNO buy support, with orders spread across exchanges, weighted by volume, placed at 80% of the fair-market average price observed from around October 2nd, 2014.  This buy order, anticipated to be placed on UNO’s birthday, October 18th, 2014, is another novel, revolutionary practice in addition to full disclosure reporting to the public, to the Unobtanium community, the details of these specific buy orders."

I must re-re-read this . . . but it seems v. v. close to the 'liquidty engine.'

6.  Lots more mutually-beneficial participation in The Blue Crypto Awards!!!  Yay!

ix and io is different story. Ix is premined and io never had much interest let alone community support.
But i see your points.
Right now it's all good but let's be awake and on guard at all times.
I'd say getting it ready for the flip of a switch is a very good idea in case things don't exactly pan out as expected.
Please test and all but let's be alert.

All good. I think i maybe had a little overreaction on getting a date for 'minimum delay' instead of a date for 'latest implementation'.

Will be good to hear it's flip-switch-ready  

All good.

Merging is Forking
------------------
just so that's clear

Then we enter the status of 3rd low inflation coin behind Ix and I0.
Is that status from the market's perception?

You concede mining, you will never mine another kg of UNO.

I don't care if you buy $70k worth of Hash (100TH) - you are entering an arena of 270,000 TH

You alienate you're entire miner base.  They leave to mine and price support another coin.

Security is not an issue right now.  It would take +$20k to even attempt to launch an attack.  And even then it doesn't do much except raise Uno hash rate, and we can keep ordering 1Th more than the bad guy on Genesis.  

And the indications are that prices will rise and hash rates will also rise.  UNO stays in a nice Hash rate comfort zone.

It is not a push off.  

It is lets get this code done ASAP, beta test it on xyzSmall coin, and maybe BIGGERbrandname coin will fork it in first to just be sure to be sure, and in 2 more halves THEN uno will fork.

 

@BN
until next year is too long.

Why push it off so far?

From my angle security is top priority.


If price and hash is double or tripple next month that's maybe a different story then.

[was edited]

That will make otc trades a lot easier. I always had trouble understanding what was open/closed.  This will will help a lot. Good one, cragv!

Un-Ex Trade-Tracker


I remain focused on the merged-mining discussion, but this deserves mention. Go, cragv!

My counter argument is push the merger off until next year.

In the meantime, prepare for it to the point is all that is needed is to flip a switch.

In that time we create a UNO tent (opposite the BTC tent) ... in that tent is UNO, Duo, Trinity (see a theme?) plus zeta, xjo, a customized coin for sidechain/bloat, and whoever else wants to join-in.

This buys us time to see what happens in cryptoland, and creates the option to go multi-algo (cuz it is basically an in-house product at that point), or fork/merge into bitcoin, or a combo of all these.

“From a logical standpoint"

BTC crashes to $1
They still can pay 'their' network more than we can.

BTC @ $1 still pays $3600/day to the network
UNO would have to be worth more than $500/kg to even approach $1btc payouts figures come Jan. 2016.

---
1. It is very likely that UNO must merge no matter what.
2. However, UNO can help develop an Aux code that allows criss-cross mining of any SHA256 coin combination.

“On that last point -- any coin can tap into and Auxpow Uno, but we haven't see that happen yet. I have approached probably 15 coin devs in the past 4 months about aux mining with uno, and even recently offered a bounty for the first coin to do it, but there haven't been any takers.  Getting others to auxpow with Uno isn't within our control. But doing auxpow/btc is within our control.”

“From a logical standpoint, if i ignore my amorous feelings towards Uno, it makes sense that Uno would be the coin merging into another coin, btc or what ever.”

And our dev is inclined to auxpow Bitcoin.

These three points impressed me most.

Dawn here. Will read hard to catch up. I understood 'fair' as FK understood it.

m

A better network provides for confidence to sink money into it. I'm all for merged mining. Low hash always has you worry. Don't say it isn't important! Price will take a jump as soon it's implemented.
A store of value needs to be secure, that's just logical.

I lurk a lot  heh. Work has me feeling run down, and i don't have much to contribute that wouldn't be too fueled by my current distaste for my work environment.

Today was a good day lol

I think if we could share some of btc's hash it would certainly help us out long term. At this point in time it is like using btc's network to supplement our own. I see this as the only viable option in the future for coins. Bitcoin has SO much hash on it. SO so so much hash. It has a lotta hash. Utilizing that helps support btc which helps to support uno. If something happens to btc, we take the inevitable flood of cheap hardware and utilize it on our network

Worst case scenario of a 51% is that we take the correct fork and rebrand it Unotrue or some other such thing, if i understand these things correctly that is possible. What prevents the cycle from repeating though?

Hi SirSmokes, good to see you back. We've missed you.

>>What is the real worry about securing the network though?
It would be a proactive move to secure the network and protect long term against low hash. Uno's next halving is coming in May.  According to  BN's schedule there are 2 halvings in 2015, and Uno will end the year with a block reward of .0078 Un.
While we're gaining with low inflation, the network will be earning less Uno.  

The concern is what could happen to the hash when the price of Uno drops. Logically, hash will move to the more profitable coin. This could leave Uno vulnerable to a 51% attack.  When Uno started off, it had a great message around a "Secure Network." I'd like to recapture that message.  Implementing AuthPOW in Uno against Bitcoin would quickly see us begin to measure the strength of our network in Petahashes (thousands of Terrahashes), rather than Terrahashes that I can count on my fingers & toes. I think it will make Uno more suitable for storing greater value in it's blockchain.  It would move Uno into a different category of strongly secured coins.

To do this will take some time. It's not instant to code it, test, and then roll out to the exchanges, pools, and recruit merge mine pools. We should do this before ther is a problem, not in reaction to a problem.  It's a big deal  that will take some time. If Blazr2/Bryce think it's a good move, I am at the point now where I can get 110% behind this.  

The way I see it, Merge Mining just means that our miners can get paid more for their hash. It doesn't put Bitcoin in charge. It doesn't obligate Uno to Bitcoin. It erases one of Bitcoin's big advantages over Uno. It removes the one big uncertainty about Uno's future (network hash as halving continues). It puts Uno into a different category of strong hash coins.  It pays miners more.

This approach seems to have the largest payoff for Uno for the effort expended. There's no need to work so hard to pull hash away from Bitcoin when it's there for the taking.

I'll just leave this here... Quantum Computers (YouTube 6 min animated intro/discussion)

(Also, good to see you around, sirsmokes - was wondering where you were!)

It is a similar difference Yeah if our market cap was as high as ltc we would all be much happier, but even still, having price parity with ltc is a pretty awesome thing. Well not if you are holding ltc after buying at 40 but if ya mined Uno when it was in its infancy it is sorta cool. It is good to see active conversation about securing the future of Uno.

What is the real worry about securing the network though? Are we concerned that someone is going to 51% attack the uno chain? It is only of real benefit if you are doing transactions. You would have to have a sum of Uno that is large enough to make the 51% attack worthwhile. I guess someone could do it, just to do it, but i don't think it would be the best use of that individuals efforts.

Is the concern that no one will mine Uno in the future and eventually the chain will grind to a halt? Taking this one step at a time is most likely the best bet. No need to rush into merged mining just because it is what the other cool kids are doing. The longer we wait the cheaper and more efficient hardware becomes and the easier it then becomes to support the network. I can see everyone working really hard to get merged mining done and then in 6 months from now someone releases yet another new technology that makes merged mining a thing of the past, and there we will be, working towards that new goal.

From a logical standpoint, if i ignore my amorous feelings towards Uno, it makes sense that Uno would be the coin merging into another coin, btc or what ever. The rewards are so low right now for Uno that it just "doesn't pay" to mine the coin. Easy fix, just toss a bunch of capital into uno then, to make it worth peoples time. lol. So much easier said than done. Even with 100 coins merged into the chain that i get as a byproduct of mining uno, that doesn't add any extra value to uno imo. Right now you could pretty much double the hashrate for zeta for under 3btc. So even securing the network, how much more secure is it really going to be if we did manage to merge others with us?