ok, then I guess one minimal solution would be:
0. all blocks must be merge mined
1. auxPOW nonce must always be chainID
2. parent nonce must never be chainID
Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Yes, this is what I'm thinking about. Except that 2) is not necessary, because 0) already ensures that PoW cannot be reused - at least, I think so. Do I miss anything? Restricting the allowed nonce could lead to confusion with miners, even though the chance of actually hitting exactly the forbidden nonce while mining is negligible.phelix wrote:ok, then I guess one minimal solution would be:
0. all blocks must be merge mined
1. auxPOW nonce must always be chainID
2. parent nonce must never be chainID
BTC: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS
Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS
Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Yeah, probably you are right.domob wrote:Yes, this is what I'm thinking about. Except that 2) is not necessary, because 0) already ensures that PoW cannot be reused - at least, I think so. Do I miss anything? Restricting the allowed nonce could lead to confusion with miners, even though the chance of actually hitting exactly the forbidden nonce while mining is negligible.phelix wrote:ok, then I guess one minimal solution would be:
0. all blocks must be merge mined
1. auxPOW nonce must always be chainID
2. parent nonce must never be chainID
So we have 0.) to distinguish between parent and auxPOW blocks and 1.) to distinguish between different auxPOW chains/chain variants (which is only necessary for spv chain fragments or Huntercoin).
Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Exactly, these two changes are what I was thinking about as well. If there are no objections / issues uncovered in the near future, I'll start working on a patch. This probably requires a bit of refactoring, but is otherwise straight-forward (I guess).phelix wrote:Yeah, probably you are right.domob wrote:Yes, this is what I'm thinking about. Except that 2) is not necessary, because 0) already ensures that PoW cannot be reused - at least, I think so. Do I miss anything? Restricting the allowed nonce could lead to confusion with miners, even though the chance of actually hitting exactly the forbidden nonce while mining is negligible.phelix wrote:ok, then I guess one minimal solution would be:
0. all blocks must be merge mined
1. auxPOW nonce must always be chainID
2. parent nonce must never be chainID
So we have 0.) to distinguish between parent and auxPOW blocks and 1.) to distinguish between different auxPOW chains/chain variants (which is only necessary for spv chain fragments or Huntercoin).
BTC: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS
Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS
Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
-
- Posts: 2001
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
- os: linux
Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Should I ping Luke-Jr and see what he thinks about this topic? He's always given us good advice, and he's knowledgeable about merged mining.
Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Sure can't hurt.biolizard89 wrote:Should I ping Luke-Jr and see what he thinks about this topic? He's always given us good advice, and he's knowledgeable about merged mining.
Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
Created a separate thread for MM2: https://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?p=16183
Should we call the (intermediate) solution above MM1b?
Should we call the (intermediate) solution above MM1b?
Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
One more thing: I initially thought that we could still allow ordinary mining for testnet and regtest mode (where it does not matter that you may get two blocks at once by merge-mining with Namecoin itself). But I think this makes things more complicated, thus I suggest that we remove ordinary PoW completely.
For this, I will change the "generate" and "setgenerate" mining commands to automatically create a minimal auxpow in the background. I also plan to remove "getblocktemplate", as it seems to make no sense for a merge-mined coin. Is that ok for everyone?
For this, I will change the "generate" and "setgenerate" mining commands to automatically create a minimal auxpow in the background. I also plan to remove "getblocktemplate", as it seems to make no sense for a merge-mined coin. Is that ok for everyone?
BTC: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS
Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS
Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
yepdomob wrote:One more thing: I initially thought that we could still allow ordinary mining for testnet and regtest mode (where it does not matter that you may get two blocks at once by merge-mining with Namecoin itself). But I think this makes things more complicated, thus I suggest that we remove ordinary PoW completely.
ACKFor this, I will change the "generate" and "setgenerate" mining commands to automatically create a minimal auxpow in the background. I also plan to remove "getblocktemplate", as it seems to make no sense for a merge-mined coin. Is that ok for everyone?
Re: Changing merge-mining format for BIP9
So we probably will have more time for the hardfork.sipa: ok, i think bip9 is moved a bit back in priority
http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev ... 52193219.0