Topic: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Hardfork block 1042000 - Merge Mine w/BTC! - page 529. (Read 1047206 times)

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.

BN has your answer:


-> 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.

as long as counterparty does not bloat the uno chain i have nothing against them. It could indeed be a good idea for them to take over or launch their own coin and merge mine that one with Uno. Why not? But that's up to them. The general idea is a good one, BN. But don't let them bloat the chain of uno!  

---

right now i think merge mine as many coins as possible with uno is likely a good approach. Especially the good ones. Miners like it, uno doesn't need a change, get more hash and it doesn't bloat the uno chain.
Are there any downsides to that?

@gustav ... yes great doors to knock on    Smart move.

RE: the case for BIG
http://blog.viacoin.org/2014/07/11/the-story-of-viacoin.html

Counterparty is trying to build a multi-Billion $dollar platform on-top of a tech that could lock them out at anytime.

If we create the BIG coin then who cares about the data bloat!  And this BIG coin is basically the child of UNO (but not recorded inour blockchain).  We potentially could court Counterparty ... Do you think that might help fortify our Dev and Research Department? 

i left a message at mazacoin thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10068448

and one for DEM:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10068171

ocminer said he would set up pools for merged mining when it comes to it

hope i did everything correctly

reading . . .

so we're actually on the same page.

Getting zeta merging into uno will be a little harder though possibly. They want it the other way around.
It would make sense for them but they are probably a bit too lofty still for that.

In case zeta doesn't want to merge with uno we'd porbably face competition from them as they would want to convince other coins to merge with them - the same coins we would target too.
But won't be a big deal.

So let's go out and ask the other coins.

Yes.  That's it.


No.  We have to be at the fore front of SHA256 Aux creation, do we fork Uno?  Later, maybe, but much later.  The goal is getting a group of SHA Alts co-mining UNO.  This means code plus getting pool Ops to create xyzCoin/UNO.aux pools.

[other issue]
Zeta merging into UNO makes sense to me.  Also ... Au, aCoin, and any other SHA that is entering the finally distribution stage ... merging into the UNO family is a good idea.  Uno must be both resourceful with tech help and lucrative for mining/miners.  

So this is a 1-2 combo punch.   [and a 3rd punch ... Aux BTC if needed ... fork in Via code]

Example 1

We help get GOAT fork in AuxPoW (the Via code).   Then we help get an UNO pool setup that also Aux mines GOAT.  Now the GOAT miners can still support and mine GOAT and get bonus UNO coins.  ^{I think in theory the BTC network could also plug in to GOAT, but I doubt they would bother.}  

Example 2

We help get BIG to fork in AuxPoW (the Via code).  Same as Above.  Now the BIG miners can still support and mine BIG and get bonus UNO coins.  ...but... Big becomes a shelter coin for very small coins that merge into BIG ... the appeal is a popular one, many miners, for many different reasons mine BIG (maybe a shacoin for everyone).  Uno benefits just the same as in example 1.  An UNO pool setup that also Aux mines BIG.

this sounds pretty good to me. So our mission is now to convince as many good smaller sha-coins as possible to auxpow with uno, right?

so this is option 3 what BN is suggesting, correct?



this could also make sense

(sorry in case the graphics hurt anyones eyes. Was quickly made in two minutes.)

so you say: 'wait a little and do nothing' , right?

could turn out to be an option especially if we can raise the marketcap a decent bit in the meantime.

would love to hear the devs optionions on all this  

option 3 would be: auxpow other coins with uno in which case uno remains unchanged. I  think that's what you're suggesting, BN, correct?

Maybe that option 3 is a good way for now.

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.


That's the general idea

Focus on "auxpow with uno"
1. setup other coins auxpow with uno ("an plugin" that they implement into their code)
2. much later (and only if needed) uno forks 2 get auxpow with the btc network
3. if UNO forks to have the Auxpow-like-Via then any pool can mine UNO (bitcoin pools too).

_{But I whisper this ... We invent auxpow sha256 ... test it on some other coins ... wait watch until uno makes 2 more halves ... and if it is all good then fine okay ... AuxPow into the Towers of Sauron.}

 
which is good to keep in mind. So we can merge with btc and still be the faster coin.


i've made tow graphics for the ideas (I'm really bad with paint   )

Does any of this make sense?

option 1 -uno auxpow with btc and other coins auxpow with uno


option 2: uno auxpow with everyone


does option two bring security concerns?
Is this even possible?


In my mind the best option would be a 5 times higher marketcap and not change at all but in case it can't be reached within months we'd probably consider some of this.

no, uno can keep the 3 minute blocks.

if we implement auxpow with btc we wouldn't have to sacrifice the 3-minute-blocks or would we?
Chains would still be seperate and in case bitcoin looses steam we can still go with option "a" and invite other coins to auxpow with uno, right?

Before we can really challenge bitcoin we'd need a sustained value of 20$ to 100$ a coin at least me thinks.

Would be merging with btc seen as admitting defeat? I don't think so. It would only show uno cares about being secure.
So if we can't reach a much higher price for a coin soon we should actually really consider the merging with btc. It could be looked at as temporary too as uno could adapt to a changing environment in case bitcoin fails, right?

----------

what about the idea of implementing auxpow with btc and inviting other smaller coins to auxpow with uno? Is it possible? Because if it would be i could imagine some miners with weaker hardware would mine directly on uno and mine the smaller coins too which would be merged with uno, while the stronger miners mine bitcoin and uno, nmc, ixc ...
Is it an option this way?

so it's two ideas:
-implement auxpow in uno for btc, zet and many others at the same time
-implement auxpow with btc only and keep looking for smaller coins which on their side would implement auxpow with uno to accomodate the smaller miners

is this in the realm of possible?
Also: is there ways to merge with scypt coins or needs to be sha under any circumstances?

guys, we can have both, can't we?
We can implement auxpow with bitcoin and other coins can implement auxpow with uno still.
In case bitcoin doesn't make it uno is still a seperate chain and wouldn't suffer from any negative effects on the btc network, would it?

So why not have it all?

I think every sustainable and longterm increase in hashrate will give it even more value. So let's aim for the hash, right?

I think if we merge with btc and that would turn out to loose steam nothing is lost for uno or is it?

I'd recommend we go that way and see from there. Zeta isn't obviously ready to implement auxpow, they ask uno to do it which won't happen for zetacoin since they are the weaker network.
Zeta needs to implement auxpow for uno not the other way around. Merging with uno needs a change on zeta side which they don't want obviously so i don't think the zeta-option is even that hot right now (would only be hot if uno was weaker which it isn't).

Merge mining zeta and uno is a topic for zeta. As far i understand it uno doesn't even need to care about it. Either they decide to to it or they don't and do other things. It's not even in our realm to decide since a merge with zetacoin doesn't need uno to implement changes as far as i understand it.

What we can do:
a) we can continue invite other sha-coins to implement auxpow with uno on their side for wich uno doesn't need to change
or
b) we implement auxpow with bitcoin and be done with it in which case uno needs to fork

i hope i understand everything right. Are there other options or do i miss something?


idea:
Is there the option to implement auxpow with bitcoin and zetacoin aswell as with numerous other coins at the same time?
To say: implement auxpow for bitcoin and when we're at it we can implement auxpow for every other coin which we think makes it longterm. Is this a possibility? Will there security issues with that?


Implementing auxpow with a weaker chain only is a stupid move most likely.
Weaker networks implement auxpow with stronger ones generally - can this be said in that way?

(I'm no pro with this by any means)

"UNO network is in a comfort zone still, and shows all the signs of continued growth."

Thanks, B.N. Reading and learning, me.

m

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.


Strong No to merging with Bitcoin.  
1.  UNO network is in a comfort zone still, and shows all the signs of continued growth.  

2. There is no incentive at this time to concede defeat, we can strive for defeating SHAblock 10min, it may appear a slim potential but it is very possible.  Don't bend a knee to btc, UNO is better suited to be the 'Challenger' to BTC.  We stand to gain fame and honor.

3. Until other sha256 networks (at least of half the strength of UNO) are under attack then there is little reward to blending into the BTC network.  As long as the UNO network is reasonably secure then the risk of attack is very low.  Note: not even 5 Mh/s junkie scrypt coins are being attacked so far.

4.  There are already 2 chains on BTC that are ZERO inflation (transaction fee only) ... UNO would be 3rd rated best inflation rate on SHAblock 10min.

^{NOTE: once we reach the sustain mining rate of production then the dynamics change.  For right now UNO is a 'Fair Distrubution' not a 'BTC side chain' kind of coin.}

Pardon me asking, B.N. I have a lot to learn here.

We have watched hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cryptos disappear into the darkness in the last 14 months, and strange stuff is still happening -- both in and out of the crypto world.

And if Unobtanium 'nearly' has a sustainable mining rate, then it still doesn't have a sustainable mining rate.

I really do understand your dislike of Bitcoin; but we are a smart smart community: if kissing Bitcoin's sweaty behind is the best option for us, should we not just do it right now?

m

we can have merge to BTC network as an option of very very very last resort
like not until at least 4 more halving before we even move it to "Possible"

Until then we fight like a champion  ...

This Zeta option is hot (Z is at sustain mining phase) ... UNO is nearly there too.

Our combined message regarding inflation and value growth may just land a very serious blow to BTC ... very serious.

Even at $1 BTC their network costs $3600/day to run (and at that point for $13M in market cap) ... BTC is a joke a sick joke ... it is exactly the same as a bank charging you $1 per $3500 per day.  Let me repeat that.

No matter how much money you pour into the investment.  No matter how much the BTC price rises or falls.  

You are being billed $1 per day per $3500 ... in other words ... you are taxed more than $1 per $10 per year.  

THAT'S BTC >> 10% TAX PER EVERY $1 INVESTED << This message combined with the Uno-Zeta solution to this problem is BIG!


---
ps Hello supernet.org