implications of merged mining / shared blockchain

[nodemaster]

was there a vote about merged mining? if not, how who made the decision?

Yes, there was: http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=217 merged mining will start in 370 NMC blocks but nevertheless it is a good idea to discuss further options. Both solutions aren't mutually exclusive.

[phelix]

was there a vote about merged mining? if not, how who made the decision?

Yes, there was: http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=217 merged mining will start in 370 NMC blocks but nevertheless it is a good idea to discuss further options. Both solutions aren't mutually exclusive.

could not find anything like a vote there...

[nodemaster]

could not find anything like a vote there...

We had several threads for two month hearing everybodys concerns and discussing the details. We cleared any issue and vinced even waited long between his posts and updates. Furthermore we did a full rollout on testnet and forked the blockchain there and no one complained. At the end there were no one saying that there is a problem with this implementation. Thus we had a strong consensus between all people who cared.

[phelix]

could not find anything like a vote there...

We had several threads for two month hearing everybodys concerns and discussing the details. We cleared any issue and vinced even waited long between his posts and updates. Furthermore we did a full rollout on testnet and forked the blockchain there and no one complained. At the end there were no one saying that there is a problem with this implementation. Thus we had a strong consensus between all people who cared.

thank you for clarifying. I understand I am too late with my concerns.

I like namecoin and the ideas behind it very much and am afraid merged mining might harm the project. especially as there are simpler solutions to the problem of the stranded block chain available.

hopefully I am wrong and it will work out just fine. leaning back to watch the show

[phelix]

[...] knowing that everyone who got a bitcoin has also got an equal amount of namecoins, what would you assign to the value of namecoin? My bet is zero, or some really really small speculative value. So after a little bit, the additional income merged mining provides will become negligible - simply installing and updating additional software and bearing with its additional security risks would not worth it. Obviously that means half-death for namecoin; they will eventually will start thinking about disabling the merged mining, but that will be almost impossible: they would suddenly be left with huge difficulty (inherited from bitcoin blockchain) with little processing power dedicated for namecoin mining. A dead end. And the similar problems might easily happen after bitcoin protocol evolves - it won't happen frequently, but will effectively require the entire piggy-backing currency to update their software all at once.

(aga on https://bitcoin.org.uk/forums/topic/63- ... the-world/)

interesting discussion going on over there

also hugolp:

[...] Merged mining might be more of a problem and a trap for alternative block chains than a solution.

[jtimon]

It appears that Vince almost have pulled off a successful "community infiltration attack" using ages old trojan horse technique.
As far as I can tell this is a live or die test for Bitcoin. If Vince's attack is successful it will be terminal for Bitcoin.

Does he knows that merged mining was Satoshi's idea?

Make no mistake, though. This parasitic mining is an attack on Bitcoin and it seems it has all the chances to be successful. Make no mistake it will lower (or already has lowered) Bitcoin's value.

Parasitic? All namecoin miners will mine bitcoin too. This is Symbiosis.

Too many emotions there and too little rational thinking.
Namecoin will rise its value because it will increase its security.
Will people leave bitcoin because it has a little bit more (current namecoin's hashing power) of security?
C'mon...

And for hugolp, maybe in the short term namecoin's price drops despite its security multiplies, but they won't drop under 0.00001 btc because I would buy them all. Just saying. I don't know a many nmc are out there, but I predict its value in dollars will not drop much, probably increase. Anyway, here the important thing is namecoin's network being more secure and having a block every 10 minutes, not our personal investments in the currency.
If you think that both currencies will drop, go on and sell them, but stop crying and calling Vinced's important development an attack, because it makes no sense.

[phelix]

It appears that Vince almost have pulled off a successful "community infiltration attack" using ages old trojan horse technique.
As far as I can tell this is a live or die test for Bitcoin. If Vince's attack is successful it will be terminal for Bitcoin.

Does he knows that merged mining was Satoshi's idea?

Make no mistake, though. This parasitic mining is an attack on Bitcoin and it seems it has all the chances to be successful. Make no mistake it will lower (or already has lowered) Bitcoin's value.

Parasitic? All namecoin miners will mine bitcoin too. This is Symbiosis.

Too many emotions there and too little rational thinking.
Namecoin will rise its value because it will increase its security.
Will people leave bitcoin because it has a little bit more (current namecoin's hashing power) of security?
C'mon...

And for hugolp, maybe in the short term namecoin's price drops despite its security multiplies, but they won't drop under 0.00001 btc because I would buy them all. Just saying. I don't know a many nmc are out there, but I predict its value in dollars will not drop much, probably increase. Anyway, here the important thing is namecoin's network being more secure and having a block every 10 minutes, not our personal investments in the currency.
If you think that both currencies will drop, go on and sell them, but stop crying and calling Vinced's important development an attack, because it makes no sense.

> Namecoin will rise its value [...].
some people expect the opposite. Nobody can be sure what happens so it is a dangerous experiment.

[jtimon]

> Namecoin will rise its value [...].
some people expect the opposite. Nobody can be sure what happens so it is a dangerous experiment.

It is only dangerous for the current holders not for the namecoin network (it's already tested). The market should factor the risks and potential gains in the price and whoever was right with his predictions would profit more.
But, wait, there's some people that don't want trade before 19200. This thread made me go mad:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43465.0

Why people hate this wonderful project?

[phelix]

> Namecoin will rise its value [...].
some people expect the opposite. Nobody can be sure what happens so it is a dangerous experiment.

It is only dangerous for the current holders not for the namecoin network (it's already tested). The market should factor the risks and potential gains in the price and whoever was right with his predictions would profit more.
But, wait, there's some people that don't want trade before 19200. This thread made me go mad:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43465.0

Why people hate this wonderful project?

it is not easily possible to test more than just the basic functionality. Nobody knows what the bitcoin miners will do with their namecoins. If you would send lot of free namecoins to everybody mining bitcoins you might get an impression of what will happen.

I have some namecoins and have registered a couple of domains and so it bothers me but bitcoinEXpress's actions are totally legit. There is a flaw and he will exploit it and even publicly announces so.

[jtimon]

I have some namecoins and have registered a couple of domains and so it bothers me but bitcoinEXpress's actions are totally legit. There is a flaw and he will exploit it and even publicly announces so.

Why does he exploit the flaw when its solution is going to be launched soon?
The word "legit" doesn't sound very good in this context to me.
Mtgox and myBitcoin attacker's actions are legit too?
If his motivation is really "get data from an experimental attack" instead of stealing from others why can't he just attack a testing chain?
Can I enter in your house, burn it and say "Hey, your lock is not secure enough"?
Does the fact that I warn you first change the fact that I'm burning your house?

bitcoinEXpress: The lock of your house is not secure enough: I have machine that I think can brake it. So one of this days I'll try to enter in it and burn it all to see how much I can destroy with my machine.

phelix: Oh, thank you. That way we could learn a lot about secure locks. You even warn me, what a gentleman!