Topic: [UNO] Unobtanium Info & Discussion - Hardfork block 1042000 - Merge Mine w/BTC! - page 531. (Read 1047206 times)

ok, so we don't even need to wait for the bottom as it would still make sense to merge if btc would fall to double digits and as was told uno could still be mined solo.
You run with it, FK  - i trust your judgement with the matter.

Let's consider a doomsday scenario.  Lets say Bitcoin hash fell by 99% from today's hash, and that Uno could only realize 1% of that 1%. Would it still be better off?

I'll attempt the math (yikes! I hate math, I'm bad at it).

Bitcoin difficulty is right now 40,640,955,016.

Crash! Bitcoin difficulty falls 99% to a mere 406,409,550 because Cex.io and nearly all other Sha256 miners switched to Zetacoin after they did something unbelievably cool that made ZET 100x more profitable to mine than bitcoin.

And poor Uno was struggling to get merged pools to add it, and was only ever able to access 1% of the bitcoin hash.
Now Uno is then left with a difficulty of just over 4 million.

Jump back to today: At this moment, Chainz says that Uno's difficulty is currently at 706,400.

In this scenario, a merged mined Uno would still have nearly 6x  (5.75x to be exact) more hash than it has today, as reflected in it's difficulty.

i tweeted the overstock-CEO yesterday about uno  

@FK need to make sure we get pools supporting it - and a few of course so not to be at the whim of a single poolowner! We'd actually need to make sure as many pools as possible would add it. So we'd probably first have to make sure it's working out before even implementing anything.

I could even imagine a miracle at this point in case bitcoin takes another dive.

Maybe this time next year bitcoin implements auxpow for uno, who knows?
All we need is a longterm investor with deep pockets (not a pumper)

I'd expect a drop in hashrate for bitcoin soon tbh. That's the next story coming possibly in case the bearmarket continues.

As we have been reading there's the remote possibility it could even end bitcoin (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hypothetical-price-collapse-and-massive-farms-failure-912190)
especially since a drop in hashrate presents an opportunity for an attacker.

(scenario: Attacker gives additional hash before the drop causing a spike in difficulty for btc, then when the natural drop-out of miners happens due to low price the attacker would withdraw his hash from bitcoin too causing a massive drop in hash and causing bitcoin to get stuck on high difficulty with blocks solving taking hours, that situation would lead to further selloff and further drop in hash - in the event of this kind of attack bitcoin would need to hardfork or just be abandoned)

so there's quite some risks in bitcoin right now because the slow difficulty adjustment and the present opportuninty to attack it with fatal consequences. If that would happen you'd be pretty rich over night even without auxpow. 

My biggest concern is whether or not mm pools would add Uno. I sent a couple of messages to pools that I know merge mine. We'll see what they say. I would think a pool that merge mines would have an interest in adding Uno, since it makes what they're doing more profitable.

We went through the kgw fork last year. It didn't go too badly; but if we do this, the next time it will go even better. We have a much better pool list at the moment, and stronger communication channels available to us.

“bitcoin going down the toilet”

We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

“UNO would need to fork (again)”

Well, then it’s lucky we’re a small and awesomely dynamic community.

If the experienced members here (I am not a miner . . . ) feel that auxpow-ing with Biggie Coin is the best option, I will work to make it happen.

m

one-time forking for that benefit shouldn't be too much hassle hopefully.
So it is like it says in this article the only ones being unhappy would be some of the current miners.

http://digiconomist.net/how-auxpow-affected-dogecoin-mining/


I think as it is presented now the benefits should far outweigh the downsides.
I personally think it's a good idea.

That's a matter of opinion based on these two facts:

• UNO would need to fork (again)
• It would be more difficult to mine UNO

then it's a no-brainer, is it?  

any downsides to it?

No, block time does not matter.  Doge has 60 sec block time, Litecoin has 2.5 minutes.

then that's pretty cool.


Does it need a change in blocktime for uno? (hope not as that would be much slower)

Merge mining is optional.  You can still solo mine it.

thanks for clarification.

my last question would be:
Could Uno still be mined solo (without mining btc at the same time) after implementing auxpow in case of a fatal event with bitcoin (continued slow death)?  

That is correct, the 'weaker' coin that wishes to get stronger, would make the change in order to gain the benefits of the stronger one.  It doesn't work as great the other way around.  If your not clear as to why, I'll be happy to explain further.


This option will not benefit UNO.  However you are correct UNO would not need to hard fork.


This is indeed the 'best' option.  It may be possible to do a 'multple' auxpow so it's not just limited to BTC.  If so, that would be great.


You technically can.  UNO can merge mine again BTC and another ALT could choose to 'leech' (merge mine) on to UNO and live off it's hash power.  Agian, as stated, this benefits the ALT more than it benefits UNO.

Personally I don't see an issue with hard forking UNO again.  I was not pleased when it did it the first time, but that's now in the past.  I think it's already done it twice.

i have been reading up on auxpow

It appears the parent chain doesn't need to be changed or updated. Only the weaker childcoin (example doge) would need implement auxpow.

so i think it's correct we face two options:

1) make uno a sheltercoin for many weaker alts which all would implement auxpow when they feel they need it - uno doesn't need to change for that (correct?)
2) merge mining with bitcoin - uno needs implement auxpow

can't have both, or can we?

Right now i'm not 100% convinced Btc network will survive on the long, long run.
What if it dumps pretty much to zero? What happens to uno then if it had auxpow with it?
In the event of bitcoin going down the toilet we would be better off to be a seperate, wouldn't we?
Can someone educate me on those questions?


(maybe wait for bitcoin to show it can hold the drink before auxpowing with it?)

UNO implementing AuxPoW against other coins is more beneficial than asking other Alts to implement AuxPoW against UNO.  Take for example, NameCoin, IXCoin which are merged mined against BTC.  They both enjoy a large amount of hash power since people would prefer to mine BTC and merge mining these coins with BTC is 'free' extra income.

Perhaps the best example is also DogeCoin that is merged mined against LTC.  If they did it the other way around I don't think they would have gained the amount of hash power they currently have.

I'd love to see UNO merge mine with more than one coin.  Wouldn't it be great to mine BTC, NMC, ZET, DEM, and UNO all at the same time?  That sounds like a win for everyone to me.

" Authpow with Bitcoin (merge mining) is a viable option for a long term rare, store-of-value, crypto-bullion/currency with big plans"

Yes!

( here goes... my official 1,000th post on bct!  )

At first glance, what I take away is even if we gathered up all of the hash from all of the coins in the first two tiers of your list, there still wouldn't be much there, relatively speaking.

Let's also add DevCoin and Namecoin to the list, both of whom merge mine with Btc:

Dvc difficulty: 19,510,000,000
Nmc difficulty: 17,990,000,000

Uno difficulty:             865,858

I have to say though, without the benefit of either dev weighing in just yet... On the surface, it sure looks to me like Authpow with Bitcoin (merge mining) is a viable option for a long term rare, store-of-value, crypto-bullion/currency with big plans, such as Unobtanium. I wouldn't want any of the crucial characteristics of Uno to be altered (max coins, 3 minute spacing, halving rewards), but I can't argue with the hash that's put up for Dvc & Nmc and other merged mine coins.

If the options are to try and convince the devs of 10 different smallcap coins to merge mine with Uno in the hope of maybe attracting a strong network,  or alternatively merge Uno's network with the most secure network on the planet while allowing our miners to also earn additional coin payouts....  It's starting to look like a no-brainer to merge mine. Isn't it?

Just for comparison and some perspective: DVC (DevCoin) is merged mine with Btc. DVC traded less than $50 so far today, and it is 1/4th Uno's market cap, but their difficulty is magnitudes of orders greater than Uno because of merged mining.



I am pessimistic that we could ever come close to providing that kind of security by building out an altcoin hash network of our own.

What do you think?


[Btw -- BigBullion's network is dead. The coin is stuck at high difficulty and it's going to take a long time at the low hash on that network to move the blockchain at that difficulty. They did not have KGW as Uno does... BIG only adjusts difficulty every 30 blocks, which crypto history has proven again and again is not a good idea. ]

@IMZ Don't

--if it works for a few then it works good enough to continue the test (it is a beta version)
----thinking on how we can run a blockchain version parallel with dvc



=====================
Network Data

ZetaCoin     Difficulty: 36,056
Joule          Difficulty: 41,466
St Louis      Difficulty: 95,736
MiddleEarth Difficulty: 194,324
Beta           Difficulty: 155,880
FireFlyCoin   Difficulty: 221,085

Unobtanium Difficulty: 865,858
MazaCoin     Difficulty: 699,833
TerraCoin     Difficulty: 2,548,020
FreiCoin       Difficulty: 3,737,250

BitCoin        Difficulty: 40,641,000,000
I0Coin         Difficulty: 01,085,070,000
PeerCoin      Difficulty: 00,246,877,000

BigBullion     Difficulty: 1,188,060

[ anyone care to interpret the data? ]

Quality In-House Communication

Yet another highly-competent computer user is bogged down with the Nxt wallet (for DVC)

There is a light-weight client (POW coin!) available.

Please post simply ''@ IMZ Change it' or '@IMZ Don't'

There is no 'politics' here. I want your straight-shootin' advice.

Never been a bittrex fan ... but if they have this feature and cry doesn't get it too ... then Hello Bittrex.

I think mr. potato sacks will be not happy about such feature.  This stops Ninja dumps.

Hoping this is an exchange house trend ...
A.  Show amounts on deposit (prove it on the chain) ... +plus ways to show distribution without linking identity
B   Show amounts of insurance held by escrow