Yeah, I've seen us hover in that vicinity for a few days. Just wish our market caps were the same, not the price of each coin!
Topic: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Hardfork block 1042000 - Merge Mine w/BTC! - page 528. (Read 1047042 times)
January 07, 2015, 02:50:01 PM
Yeah, I've seen us hover in that vicinity for a few days. Just wish our market caps were the same, not the price of each coin!
January 07, 2015, 02:46:28 PM
January 07, 2015, 01:22:37 PM
@knife
"altruistic hash" is a fringe benefit / a bonus
The concept is still very much rooted in capitalist principle ... the 2 are not exclusive in this case.
This also brings UNO to the point of merging with BTC with out actually merging (go BtcAux).
"Uno is generally less profitable to mine than Bitcoin"
This is were I think past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
Paycoin proved just what you said: " Hash is hash is hash. It goes to where it can make money."
So rising UNO prices and falling BTC prices is 9/10ths of the equation.
The AuxPow w/ Uno is more about demonstrating the Uno communities ability to be innovative and forward thinking.
It counters the argument that the Uno network lacks sidechains, and BTC and LTC have sidechains therefore any 'worthy' network must have sidechains.
It shows the Uno network can go toe-2-toe with the big boys tech wise.
---
In SHA256 land mining anything but BTC is less profitable.
And today I have also suggested that the public's perception of the value/cost/benefit of the BTC network are way out of wack. To the point of being wacky. And the network will milk this public misconception until it is dry.
Uno may end up with a large chuck of the network infrastructure because bitcoin prices completely collapse.
Or the public gets smarter. (doubtful)
Or uno may have to hop on to the BTC network.
Creating the UnoAux extends the time frame, and gains more public notice/exposure, and if needed it generates the code to go BtcAux.
"altruistic hash" is a fringe benefit / a bonus
The concept is still very much rooted in capitalist principle ... the 2 are not exclusive in this case.
This also brings UNO to the point of merging with BTC with out actually merging (go BtcAux).
"Uno is generally less profitable to mine than Bitcoin"
This is were I think past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
Paycoin proved just what you said: " Hash is hash is hash. It goes to where it can make money."
So rising UNO prices and falling BTC prices is 9/10ths of the equation.
The AuxPow w/ Uno is more about demonstrating the Uno communities ability to be innovative and forward thinking.
It counters the argument that the Uno network lacks sidechains, and BTC and LTC have sidechains therefore any 'worthy' network must have sidechains.
It shows the Uno network can go toe-2-toe with the big boys tech wise.
---
In SHA256 land mining anything but BTC is less profitable.
And today I have also suggested that the public's perception of the value/cost/benefit of the BTC network are way out of wack. To the point of being wacky. And the network will milk this public misconception until it is dry.
Uno may end up with a large chuck of the network infrastructure because bitcoin prices completely collapse.
Or the public gets smarter. (doubtful)
Or uno may have to hop on to the BTC network.
Creating the UnoAux extends the time frame, and gains more public notice/exposure, and if needed it generates the code to go BtcAux.
January 07, 2015, 12:19:05 PM
I can make a pool for you guys if you integrate auxpow. There is always a Main chain with decent hash which could be used for that, so that should not be a Problem at all.
If uno Supports auxpow like for example namecoin does, it is added in a matter of seconds to an existing infrastructure on the pool
If uno Supports auxpow like for example namecoin does, it is added in a matter of seconds to an existing infrastructure on the pool
January 07, 2015, 12:16:49 PM
I don't know, man. It's still a ton of work for very little hash.
Even if you scoop up all of hash for all of the smallcap coins out there, it doesn't amount to much. Then there's the matter of convincing pool ops to take it on.
I was once an activist on the plan to get other coins to mm with Uno, but then after going out and talking to different coin devs and trying to convince them, I have become much less optimistic it is viable.
I would sure welcome any coin to authpow with Uno, but you'll have to show me one first. I couldn't find one, maybe someone else can. My bounty still stands.
I've come around to thinking differently about hash. There's no ego in it. Hash is hash is hash. It goes to where it can make money. And it's not "Bitcoin's network." No, it's really just "Miners mining for profit." They would be glad to also mine Uno at the same time because it makes them more profitable. The hashes don't care -- if they work with a Uno block, that's great. And Uno doesn't care, just as long as the hash fits. We're just talking about securing the value of your Uno in the blockchain. There's no defeat whatsoever in choosing to authpos with Btc. Hash doesn't care.
I've been pushing the idea of "altruistic hash" around Uno, and have spent money with a cloud miner to keep hash on Uno at all times. The capitalist in me would much rather mine both Btc & Uno together, and maybe some other useful coins to boot, especially since Uno is generally less profitable to mine than Bitcoin. Even if we go to authpos with bitcoin, I'll still retain my unhealthy emotional attachment to Uno, and I will choose a pool that merge mines Uno, but at least I'll get paid more.
And when Uno becomes more profitable to mine than Bitcoin? Even better! Miners can earn more money. But nothing really has to change. It doesn't matter, so long as there's enough hash to keep Uno secure.
AuthPos with Btc is something our devs could do to secure Uno.
AuthPos with Uno is something we have to wait for others to do to secure Uno.
I would love Blazr2 to weigh in on it. BW thinks it might be the way to go. But none of this is up to me.
Even if you scoop up all of hash for all of the smallcap coins out there, it doesn't amount to much. Then there's the matter of convincing pool ops to take it on.
I was once an activist on the plan to get other coins to mm with Uno, but then after going out and talking to different coin devs and trying to convince them, I have become much less optimistic it is viable.
I would sure welcome any coin to authpow with Uno, but you'll have to show me one first. I couldn't find one, maybe someone else can. My bounty still stands.
I've come around to thinking differently about hash. There's no ego in it. Hash is hash is hash. It goes to where it can make money. And it's not "Bitcoin's network." No, it's really just "Miners mining for profit." They would be glad to also mine Uno at the same time because it makes them more profitable. The hashes don't care -- if they work with a Uno block, that's great. And Uno doesn't care, just as long as the hash fits. We're just talking about securing the value of your Uno in the blockchain. There's no defeat whatsoever in choosing to authpos with Btc. Hash doesn't care.
I've been pushing the idea of "altruistic hash" around Uno, and have spent money with a cloud miner to keep hash on Uno at all times. The capitalist in me would much rather mine both Btc & Uno together, and maybe some other useful coins to boot, especially since Uno is generally less profitable to mine than Bitcoin. Even if we go to authpos with bitcoin, I'll still retain my unhealthy emotional attachment to Uno, and I will choose a pool that merge mines Uno, but at least I'll get paid more.
And when Uno becomes more profitable to mine than Bitcoin? Even better! Miners can earn more money. But nothing really has to change. It doesn't matter, so long as there's enough hash to keep Uno secure.
AuthPos with Btc is something our devs could do to secure Uno.
AuthPos with Uno is something we have to wait for others to do to secure Uno.
I would love Blazr2 to weigh in on it. BW thinks it might be the way to go. But none of this is up to me.
January 07, 2015, 12:11:44 PM
Ok I wonder what Blazr2 have to say about all this. ? We didn't see him here for long time?
January 07, 2015, 11:42:39 AM
If I am ZET, why would I auxpow with Uno, instead of just going directly to BTC?
It's the same amount of work for me, and I have to fork. If I am a ZET dev, what advantage would I perceive choosing Uno instead of Bitcoin?
It's the same amount of work for me, and I have to fork. If I am a ZET dev, what advantage would I perceive choosing Uno instead of Bitcoin?
you'd be safe with uno even in the event of bitcoin failing maybe? And maybe also to do the small miners some good?
Building that ecosystem with the smaller coins is certainly more diplomacy and maybe uno will later be more interesting than bitcoin to them. Next few months will reveal what the deal is with bitcoin.
I'd be for building both those circles. We can work on both simultaneously, right?
If no established coin wants to auxpow with uno we can still take on abandoned coins or launch the own ones to build the blue circle.
Maybe uno is soon much more interesting to auxpow with for the other devs? Certainly possible.
January 07, 2015, 11:33:27 AM
If I am ZET's dev, why would I auxpow with Uno, instead of just going directly to BTC?
It's the same amount of work for me, and I have to fork. What advantage would I perceive in choosing Uno instead of Bitcoin?
It's the same amount of work for me, and I have to fork. What advantage would I perceive in choosing Uno instead of Bitcoin?
auxpow with Uno will be readymade and with side support help
But
auxpow with BTC probably could be 'hacked' out of auxpow with Uno if ZET devs choose that route
advantages
1. UNO miners 'get' the non-inflationary idea, and Zeta is among that class of coins. So the attraction to mine Zeta/Uno in the Uno group is stronger than the the mine Zeta/BTC group. Proof in their current network numbers. A low hash coin low reward coin with the ability to mine 0.0000099 btc per day ... wow!
2. Zeta/BTC will get little demand from current BTC pools, my guess is each pool set up will require bribes. Zeta/Uno will likely be warmly received from eager pool Ops. Very different crowds.
3. Cuz it's cool to mine Uno and Zeta at the same time. Rising UNO prices help pay for more ZET mine support. Zeta starts to look more and more like a secure network, drawing more investors.
4. UNO/ZET gain the public perception of being equivalents of different measure if UNO trades for $5 then one ZET is $0.05.
5. And we fight the BTC inflationary dragon together
January 07, 2015, 11:28:54 AM
If I am ZET's dev, why would I auxpow with Uno, instead of just going directly to BTC?
It's the same amount of work for me, and I have to fork. What advantage would I perceive in choosing Uno instead of Bitcoin?
It's the same amount of work for me, and I have to fork. What advantage would I perceive in choosing Uno instead of Bitcoin?
January 07, 2015, 10:45:48 AM
building both circles will give us maximum security and also provide for good decentralisation.
green: can be had easier (no big diplomacy) , provides A LOT of hashpower BUT could become obsolete
blue: is more diplomacy and longer process but also good to have that environment and will make the small miners happy and devs can use it for training. In case bitcoin bites the dust it is an important part.
Would love to in fact see that mining-ecosystem emerge. Will put uno ahead of pretty much all coins imo. I think once this mining-system is a reality uno should be a huge coin and unchallenged #1 coin for storing value.
I see a bright future coming with this.
green: can be had easier (no big diplomacy) , provides A LOT of hashpower BUT could become obsolete
blue: is more diplomacy and longer process but also good to have that environment and will make the small miners happy and devs can use it for training. In case bitcoin bites the dust it is an important part.
Would love to in fact see that mining-ecosystem emerge. Will put uno ahead of pretty much all coins imo. I think once this mining-system is a reality uno should be a huge coin and unchallenged #1 coin for storing value.
I see a bright future coming with this.
January 07, 2015, 10:33:30 AM
Quote
" implement green circle later if it's still a topic and bitcoin still relevant. "
Yeap. Exactly what I am thinking
Go with the blue circle. See what happens, we could get the code and everything perfectly right, but some BTC black swan event makes the green circle irrelevant.
I think Devs (both UNO and other coins) need to hash it out, talk it over, and then speak to the community.
i would also like to see this happen...rather than just merge mining with btc
January 07, 2015, 10:28:12 AM
Quote
" implement green circle later if it's still a topic and bitcoin still relevant. "
Yeap. Exactly what I am thinking
Go with the blue circle. See what happens, we could get the code and everything perfectly right, but some BTC black swan event makes the green circle irrelevant.
I think Devs (both UNO and other coins) need to hash it out, talk it over, and then speak to the community.
January 07, 2015, 10:23:47 AM
By creating the 'code' to do the blue circle AuxPow w/ UNO
you also have created the 'code' to do the green circle AuxPow w/ BTC
-just a slight modification is needed-
1. UNO devs get the street credit
2. We can test it for a couple of months in the blue circle.
3. UNO must fork to enter the green circle.
you also have created the 'code' to do the green circle AuxPow w/ BTC
-just a slight modification is needed-
1. UNO devs get the street credit
2. We can test it for a couple of months in the blue circle.
3. UNO must fork to enter the green circle.
if you say it needs more coding and testing because it's not really out there and the devs need to practice some, what you're saying makes sense of course.
We'll need the other coins on board with it.
So build blue circle for couple of months, see how it works out and implement green circle later if it's still a topic and bitcoin still relevant.
I think at this point it's up to the devs and the other coin communities.
Maybe we should let our devs decide on it if they feel they want to test on other coins first or if the tech is good enough to implement in uno already (i have no insight there).
January 07, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
By creating the 'code' to do the blue circle AuxPow w/ UNO
you also have created the 'code' to do the green circle AuxPow w/ BTC
-just a slight modification is needed-
1. UNO devs get the street credit
2. We can test it for a couple of months in the blue circle.
3. UNO must fork to enter the green circle.
4. Once you set up the green circle, the average person can mine UNO no longer, even at rent-a-hash, 500TH/s is small time at that level.
you also have created the 'code' to do the green circle AuxPow w/ BTC
-just a slight modification is needed-
1. UNO devs get the street credit
2. We can test it for a couple of months in the blue circle.
3. UNO must fork to enter the green circle.
4. Once you set up the green circle, the average person can mine UNO no longer, even at rent-a-hash, 500TH/s is small time at that level.
January 07, 2015, 09:55:57 AM
@BN 300k$ for one coin would probably make me loose my mind
It's beyond of what i could imagine right now. But i like your thinking. It's possible for sure. Uno would need to go viral for that or draw in very big investors. You never know. It's all possible with the internet certainly.
@gustav
Yes that's the idea. Let's help the small-time miners keep in the game. Spread the wealth some, keep SHA256 from going monolithic. Again.
but ... I think getting to the green circle means FORK uno ... I still think is fine around UNO year 3.
but ... what if we topple BTC in the next 2 years ? Then no fork and we are still helping the little coins.
it is possible
this will also depend, like FK says, if there will be any takers and other coins implement it. If no other smaller sha-coins want to implement that we'll have not so many choices left.
Let's try to get the other coins to auxpow with uno.
On the other hand: if we toppled bitcoin it would be no disadvantage to be auxpow with it because uno can still be mined seperately. Say bitcoin goes to zero and uno goes to 300k$ a coin miners will just mine uno directly - no problem there.
Right now hash is not so high. I wouldn't want to wait for another two years tbh with taking some action there.
If bitcoin fails and we implemented auxpow with it, it won't affect uno as we are still building the blue circle.
auxpow with bitcoin can be had almost instantly, will raise security and price.
Building the blue circle can still be done but is also mainly depending on the other coins to implement it and likely not in our direct control.
In case bitcoin fails the blue circle is what everyone goes forward to.
So why not actually build it all at once? -> implement auxpow with btc and still look for other coins to auxpow with uno. Just like the last graphic shows.
It's beyond of what i could imagine right now. But i like your thinking. It's possible for sure. Uno would need to go viral for that or draw in very big investors. You never know. It's all possible with the internet certainly.
@gustav
Yes that's the idea. Let's help the small-time miners keep in the game. Spread the wealth some, keep SHA256 from going monolithic. Again.
but ... I think getting to the green circle means FORK uno ... I still think is fine around UNO year 3.
but ... what if we topple BTC in the next 2 years ?
Then no fork and we are still helping the little coins. it is possible
this will also depend, like FK says, if there will be any takers and other coins implement it. If no other smaller sha-coins want to implement that we'll have not so many choices left.
Let's try to get the other coins to auxpow with uno.
On the other hand: if we toppled bitcoin it would be no disadvantage to be auxpow with it because uno can still be mined seperately. Say bitcoin goes to zero and uno goes to 300k$ a coin miners will just mine uno directly - no problem there.
Right now hash is not so high. I wouldn't want to wait for another two years tbh with taking some action there.
If bitcoin fails and we implemented auxpow with it, it won't affect uno as we are still building the blue circle.
auxpow with bitcoin can be had almost instantly, will raise security and price.
Building the blue circle can still be done but is also mainly depending on the other coins to implement it and likely not in our direct control.
In case bitcoin fails the blue circle is what everyone goes forward to.
So why not actually build it all at once? -> implement auxpow with btc and still look for other coins to auxpow with uno. Just like the last graphic shows.
January 07, 2015, 09:37:29 AM
@gustav
$20,000 for one UNO coin before we are equal to BTC market capital?
$1080000 is what BTC pays its network per day. @ 15 uno / day >> $72000/kg before we pay what BTC pays to secure value on a SHA256 network.
$72000/kg will buy plenty of Hash
And like you said the reward halves about twice a year, so we go to $144000/kg in May and to about $300k/kg in 1 year from today.
I am not saying UNO is worth $300k/kg ... but if we follow the bitcoin model of what you need to pay your network ... then UNO is worth $300k/kg come next January.
This is my attempt to explain what is a good store of value and what is a bad store of value to the BTC fanatics. A vault keeper that bills you $1 million a day is a bad place to store value. And that is exactly what the BTC network is charging. UNO offers the same (exact same possibly) security for micro pennies on the dollar.
@Knife
the Fair part
40,640,955,016
vs
1,000,000
40000:1
That's bitcoins difficulty verses what I call a 'fair' coin something at difficulty 1,000,000. Again bitcoin x40,000 past fair. It is going straight to BIG BIG money who are taking BIG BIG risk in $multi million dollar ASIC factories.
So plugging UNO into the BTC hash stream is basically say hey come take all the value out of mining UNO for the average Joe. That's why I am saying not fair.
But in a couple more halves say UNO year 3 ... fair is fair ... plenty of time to get in on the UNO thing ... and UNO can graduate into the superHash stream.
@gustav
Yes that's the idea. Let's help the small-time miners keep in the game. Spread the wealth some, keep SHA256 from going monolithic. Again.
but ... I think getting to the green circle means FORK uno ... I still think is fine around UNO year 3.
but ... what if we topple BTC in the next 2 years ? Then no fork and we are still helping the little coins.
it is possible
-----
Ideal Sha256 Universe Summer 2015
BTC ... miners hoping off in droves to below
Peer ... big Hash
Uno ... big Hash
x-Coin ... slightly less Hash than Uno
y-Coin ... slightly less Hash than Uno
z-Coin ... slightly less Hash than Uno
Now smaller coins can
a) struggle with trying to match/gain hash power
b) merge with one of the above
OR ... plug in the UNO auxPow
$20,000 for one UNO coin before we are equal to BTC market capital?
$1080000 is what BTC pays its network per day. @ 15 uno / day >> $72000/kg before we pay what BTC pays to secure value on a SHA256 network.
$72000/kg will buy plenty of Hash
And like you said the reward halves about twice a year, so we go to $144000/kg in May and to about $300k/kg in 1 year from today.
I am not saying UNO is worth $300k/kg ... but if we follow the bitcoin model of what you need to pay your network ... then UNO is worth $300k/kg come next January.
This is my attempt to explain what is a good store of value and what is a bad store of value to the BTC fanatics. A vault keeper that bills you $1 million a day is a bad place to store value. And that is exactly what the BTC network is charging. UNO offers the same (exact same possibly) security for micro pennies on the dollar.
@Knife
the Fair part
40,640,955,016
vs
1,000,000
40000:1
That's bitcoins difficulty verses what I call a 'fair' coin something at difficulty 1,000,000. Again bitcoin x40,000 past fair. It is going straight to BIG BIG money who are taking BIG BIG risk in $multi million dollar ASIC factories.
So plugging UNO into the BTC hash stream is basically say hey come take all the value out of mining UNO for the average Joe. That's why I am saying not fair.
But in a couple more halves say UNO year 3 ... fair is fair ... plenty of time to get in on the UNO thing ... and UNO can graduate into the superHash stream.
@gustav
Yes that's the idea. Let's help the small-time miners keep in the game. Spread the wealth some, keep SHA256 from going monolithic. Again.
but ... I think getting to the green circle means FORK uno ... I still think is fine around UNO year 3.
but ... what if we topple BTC in the next 2 years ?
Then no fork and we are still helping the little coins. it is possible
-----
Ideal Sha256 Universe Summer 2015
BTC ... miners hoping off in droves to below
Peer ... big Hash
Uno ... big Hash
x-Coin ... slightly less Hash than Uno
y-Coin ... slightly less Hash than Uno
z-Coin ... slightly less Hash than Uno
Now smaller coins can
a) struggle with trying to match/gain hash power
b) merge with one of the above
OR ... plug in the UNO auxPow
January 07, 2015, 09:27:53 AM
new concept:
does this make sense?
With this kind of concept Uno can still be a place for miners with weaker hardware too.
Just an idea
Is this any good?
does this make sense?
With this kind of concept Uno can still be a place for miners with weaker hardware too.
Just an idea
Is this any good?
January 07, 2015, 09:05:39 AM
if we implement auxpow with btc we wouldn't have to sacrifice the 3-minute-blocks or would we?
This auxpow is does not exist (yet). I am not a fan of auxpow off the BTC network. Because that means we give up on the 'Fair' part of Uno. I suggest creating something that lets others tap into Aux Uno.
I don't see it that way, but would like to understand why you do. To me the fair aspects of Uno were created by Blazr2 at launch, and I don't see as something that can be lost. Am I wrong?
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. Uno becomes part of a small group of coins that are secured by immense power. If I'm a miner (and I am) I have a greater chance at profitability by mining several coins simultaneously.
I think... let us duke it out with Bitcoin on fairness, rarity, community, store-of-value, but not on network security. Today we lose the nework security argument to them. But reaching a virtual parity with Bitcoin on network security is within our grasp through auxpow, and eliminates that weakness for Uno.
I haven't been able to see the downside of this yet, but I'm still looking hard for one.
January 07, 2015, 08:50:17 AM
And if Unobtanium 'nearly' has a sustainable mining rate, then it still doesn't have a sustainable mining rate.
True. If UNO goes to $1000/coin tomorrow then we must pay the miners, the POW network, $15,000/day. I think that is a bit much. But we will only have to pay $4000/day around November. BTC @ $1000/coin must pay $3.6M/day.
This makes UNO 900x more efficient at securing value on a SHA256 network. Does this sound appealing? And it gets more and more efficient as we approach year 2020.
Had to smile about that one. If uno goes to 1000$ a coin there will be enough demand for 15k$ a day to cover that. The fast halvings provide short bearmarkets. So let's say uno does suddenly rise like crazy to 1000$ a coin: that increased demand will pretty much cover the inflationrate and soon it halves again to 7,5 coins a day which is totally sustainable.
Uno right now at the same marketcap like bitcoin would take 300k$ per day to run it whereas bitcoin uses more than 1Million$ in funds every day to run. Uno is already 3 to 4 times more efficient than bitcoin. With the next halving that efficency will double to 6 to 8 times more efficient than bitcoin.
So Uno is already much more efficient than bitcoin and will be more so as time passes.
calculation:
hypothetical cap of 4 billion (bitcoins cap right now)
Bitcoin 3600 coin/day inflation at 300$ per coin uses around 1million USD in funds every day
Uno at 4 billion marketcap would be 20000$ for one coin and would use right now around 300k$ to run at bitcoins marketcap with that daily inflation of only 15 coins/day - halving about twice a year, so that cost would come down further.
Uno is definately more efficient than bitcoin and thus more appealing to store value or invest in it.
Bitcoin is good in turning money into heat but not as store of value.
January 07, 2015, 08:41:49 AM
-> If I'm understanding correctly, we like UNO to have a sustainable mining rate with predictable/gradual increases in hash (mining rate) pairing nicely with increase in value (affecting cost of mining) and PoW requirements (difficulty of mining). Sudden jumps in hash rates resulting from "as many coins as possible" merging with UNO could have a negative effect on UNO's efficiency as it demands more daily overhead, ultimately hurting our growth, price, security (attacks if they ever ramp up from <5MHash scrypt targets), agility, etc.
*Still learning here so the above may be baloney.
i don't think it'll hurt the growth (more like the opposite) because more hashrate on a coin does not mean more coins will be produced. The daily inflation of 15Uno/day will remain the same. Mining will become more difficult for the individual miners so the daily inflation does not change because of higher or lower hashrate for all i know.
Jump to: