hello everyone, i want to mine namecoins on my personal computer, but i cant find any clear info or a program on the internet, is there a way to you guys show or give me me a tutorial for mining namecoin ?
An appeal to the community: Introduce Merge-Mining & switch to SHA256.
BTCP was launched as GPU-friendly coin, with the Equihash algo. Although I appreciate the arguing behind it, I strongly believe we should follow our big brother Bitcoin, and enable merge-mining BTC + BTCP. With changing circumstances, we need to change our plans. With the current lower than expected price of Bitcoin Private, it is way too cheap to 51%-attack BTCP. In fact, it only costs a few hundred bucks per hour. That's way too cheap to take down a network currently valued at $55M. The current hashrate is atrocious, and in all honesty I'm not expecting it to be much higher any time soon. A changed algo will not magically increase the hashrate 10-fold, especially not with the current price. This means that the network will remain insecure and susceptible to 51%-attacks. It has happened to Horizen (formerly ZenCash), Bitcoin Gold and Verge in recent months. A few days ago, BTCP was also targeted, though it did not succeed. A successful attempt seems to be a question of time. By moving to SHA256, Bitcoin Private can take the advantage of Bitcoin's hashrate. In addition to the rebase, this also makes Bitcoin Private even closer to its big brother Bitcoin; the difference being BTCP's focus on Privacy.
What to expect in the next 5-10 years. From the perspective of a long-time crypto holder.
I've been involved in crypto since reading about Bitcoin in 2010. I've seen coins come and go and everything in between. How many of you know what Solidcoin is? Yeah, I've seen a thing or two. Whether or not a coin does well in the long-term is tied to many factors. Among those factors, one of them is the emission rate of new coins. Emission rate, of itself, doesn't mean much because it is constant. However, it is a positive sign when you see a high level of demand which can be translated as the total network hashrate being rather large. At this time I see the number one Cryptonight bases coin is Monero. The Monero network hashrate is around 1000mh/s. This is very high and it is a testament to the fact that Monero is perceived to be a coin of value worth the effort to mine. Electroneum, at this time, has the next highest network hashrate of all Cryptonight coins. Currently it is bouncing between 250-300mh/s. This level of mining support tells me there is significant value in mining ETN. So, back to the emission rate. The emission rate of new coins is often pretty high. This is especially true for ETN. Like other coins, Sumocoin excluded, the emission rate is constantly decreasing. This feature isn't remarkable in itself, but in the case of ETN it will be more interesting than it is with other coins. I did the math for the ETN long-term emission rate and I figured that ETN block rewards will become effectively very small in comparison to the current reward in 10 years. In 5 years, the block reward will be about 10% of what it was at release. About 750 ETN. In another 5 years following that, it will be about 75 ETN. Understand, these rewards will be true regardless of the technology advances that occur. Even if the network hashrate grows to 1000Gh/s, the emission rate will not change and the rewards will still decrease to these numbers. In short, ETN will become much harder and expensive to mine. This will have a direct impact on the value of ETN in the future. So how much of an impact am I talking about? I'm going to throw some numbers out there. These are Very Conservative numbers, but I feel they are realistic for anyone interested in the long-term outlook. Assuming that ETN does nothing new from where they are today, it will be a safe conservative bet that ETN will be worth $0.25-0.35 in five years. If ETN can survive for five years, the five years following that will be the largest in growth. In ten years ETN will be worth $2.50-3.50. Lambos? No, not really. But for all practical purposes, a very good outlook for long-term investors. For many, these numbers are unacceptable. And I get where those people are coming from. They see coins skyrocket 10,000% in one year and they want some of that magic. The purpose and use case behind ETN could very well drive the price much higher than my predictions. But understand that my numbers are based on nothing new or remarkable happening for ETN. And with that, I should also provide a sober and alternative possibility for the future of ETN as well. This is what I call the Solidcoin Fate. Remember Solidcoin? Yeah, a lot of people don't. Solidcoin was a new coin that was introduced around the time that Namecoin was developed, although it wasn't related to NMC in any way. Solidcoin became the first new Crypto to have a significant percentage of miners drop BTC mining for mining Solidcoin. Things were looking great until the developer suddenly dropped support and abandoned everything. It wasn't a scam coin. The developer simply never intended it to take off like it did and became overwhelmed and disillusioned with technical difficulties at the same time. Thus, Solidcoin evaporated as quickly as it became a success. The lesson here is, a centralized coin can suddenly go belly-up if the developer suddenly abandons it. While I don't expect to see that with ETN, it is a possibility that could occur. Hopefully, as was the case for how Monero was born, a large group of supporters will take over and continue development as a decentralized coin. The number of supporters for ETN certainly supports a scenario like this if the worse were to happen. No matter what happens, it will be an interesting ride to take. As a holder and user of ETN (Yes, I use it. Bought several Steam games with it. It's not a currency if you don't ever spend it.) I naturally want to see the best outlook become reality. I am also a realist, and I don't subscribe to dreams of riches and "lambos". Even if magical things happen in the world of Cryptos, it isn't responsible to make investments and decisions based on fantasy. The reality for ETN, in my opinion, is that it will be a great coin to hold if you can hold for 10 years. I can hold for 10 years and I will. My investment isn't so great that I need to worry about it or that I'm always thinking about it. If yours is, you aren't investing responsibly. Best of luck to everyone.
If you missed any of the drama, here is what actually happened so far in the past few days An altcoin which was created at 1st Aug was listed 2 days ago in the korean exchanges and as any new altcoin it was pumped by them and everyone got too excited and followed them ... This resulted in a rapid increase in the mining profitability for the other chain after it adjusted the difficulty yesterday ... and miners started to jump in ... That's what happened so far ... here is what is going to happen in the following days : hash power is far greater than the current difficulty ... as a result, about 36 new blocks are made / hour ... that is far more profitable than the bitcoin's mining ... until the next difficulty kicks in ( expected within 2 days at the current rate ), at this point the difficulty will adjust upwards exponentially resulting in a less profitable chain compared to the bitcoin ... miners will start to jump back to the btc chain leaving the other chain in a frozen state .. that actually happened before with namecoin Here is a tweet from charlie lee confirming it https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/899418458349228032 tl;dr miners only care about profitability
Merged mining makes absolutely no sense in the context of this fork
Hello all, I've been reading a lot of posts around here about making the scalable(s) fork(s) merged mining compatible. I don't know where people got this idea from, but really, this makes no sense. First, a merged mined coin is dependent on the "original" chain from where miners can merge mine. For example, Namecoin is dependent on Bitcoin. One has to mine Bitcoin in order to mine Namecoin. Why would you want our scalable Bitcoin to be dependent on the perpetual existence of BlockstreamCoin? We should be abe to keep going even if they disappear. Secondly, and probably most important, a merged mined coin is extremely vulnerable to attacks from miners of its parent coin. Just read about CoiledCoin and how LukeJr killed it so easily. He had no extra cost, didn't need to stop mining Bitcoin at all, and could perform a >50% attack that froze the network at its inception. Same thing would easily happen with our spin-off if it was merged mining. PS: I base my post on the knowledge I have of merged mining obtained after reading about it shortly after Namecoin was launched. Perhaps that's outdated and today merged mining can be done without the issues I describe, in which case I'd appreciate to learn more.
Cryptocurrency mining is a broad subject, with many different facets. There are a number of different ways in which mining can be done, ranging from traditional dedicated hardware mining, like the ASICs, GPU mining, cloud mining or web browser mining, to name some. However, a very interesting and less known concept is the one of merged mining. This process entails the mining of two coins that are based on the same algorithm, simultaneously. Basically, merged mining allows a miner to mine on more than one blockchain at a time. The added benefit to this is that the miner will contribute to both of the blockchain’s hashrates, hence increasing their security (lower threat of a 51% attack) and functionality. Satoshi Nakamoto himself has written on the subject, in this Bitcointalk post from 2010 regarding Bitcoin specifically, saying: I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin. The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously. The networks wouldn’t need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty. I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work. Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work. Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other’s total CPU power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one. Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners. Perhaps the most discussed examples of merged mining are the pairs Bitcoin & Namecoin and Litecoin & Dogecoin. In a merged mining process, there always has to be a parent blockchain and an auxiliary one. This process does not require any additional computing power from the miners, which is a big advantage. First, a block of transactions for each chain has to be assembled. The next step is simply starting to mine. During the process there are 3 possible outcomes:
Mining a block at Bitcoin’s difficulty level. You receive both mining rewards.
Mining a block at Namecoin’s difficulty level. You only receive the Namecoin mining reward.
Mining a block between Namecoin’s and Bitcoin’s difficulty level. Same outcome as scenario number two.
The biggest disadvantage of implementing merged mining is that within the auxiliary chain, there is implementation and development work involved and when switching, a hard fork is needed. Overall, merged mining benefits miners, not so much investors, however it does offer other perks like increased security for the actual networks. Could be the perfect approach for new projects, in terms of protecting themselves from a 51% attack for example. It is an interesting implementation which more people should be aware of.
What would you do if major exchanges start accepting other cryptocurrencies?
MtGox is said to accept Litecoin and maybe Namecoin in the next weeks. Other big guys might start doing the same as well. LTCPP might be ready to be a Litecoin payment platform by the end of June. If there is a solid exchange and the possibility of commerce with other cryptocurriencies, would you trade with them?
WHAT IF: Could miners collude to only mine every other difficulty cycle?
What-If-Machine question: The difficulty threshold is changed every 2016 blocks based on the time duration of the 2016 previous blocks, correct? (Just the last 2016? No exponential averages of earlier blocks or anything like that?) So what if all the people with high-end mining machines (ASICs and the like) collude, but not in the 51%-attack sense: what if they run all their miners full-throttle during a difficulty cycle, but then turn off all their miners during the next cycle? This would produce a two-phase cycle with very low-difficulty low-cost high-yield mining in one phase, and very slow high-difficulty low-yield mining in the next (which these colluding miners would skip). Furthermore, this would discourage other miners from mining during the slow phases at all (assuming they pay for electricity). They'd be incented to join the alternating-phase crowd, exacerbating the effect even more. The main issue I see with this is that transactions would be processed extremely slowly during the longer high-difficulty phases with few miners. Is there any mechanism, disincentive, or thing I forgot that would prevent this or make it a non-issue?
Charlie Lee's (aka coblee) final thoughts on Merged Mining
I'm glad to see that my post has got the community talking. This is what I wanted to do. Sorry for trying to scare you guys into action. Most shibes do not realize how bad the situation is and will become. I was around when Namecoin went through the rollercoaster difficulty problem and had to merged mine in 2011. I've mined Namecoin and I have also mined Namecoin merged mined with Bitcoin. I created Litecoin and spent 3 years working on it seeing it go from a CPU coin to a GPU coin and now a ASIC coin. I've seen many coins get attacked for lulz. So there are only a few people that truly understands the situation you are in as well as I do. Most of them are happy to sit back and make popcorn. But, I felt responsible for doing something (anything) to try to help. The first time I approached you guys, I thought it was win/win for Dogecoin and Litecoin. Today, it's pretty much only to help Dogecoin survive. I own some Doge, not a trivial amount but also not a huge amount. So I won't lose sleep over it if it goes to 0, but I am definitely not doing this to protect my investment. And I don't make posts to try to manipulate the market. You may not have liked the way I presented the facts in my post. Some think it's FUD. Maybe I did do a little of that to scare people to action. But whatever the case, at least it's working. Some of you hate me. Some of you think that I'm an egotistical maniac that just came here to gloat and say I told you so. Whatever. I'm too thick-skinned to let this bother me. I do what I feel is right. All I know is that I will hate to live with the fact that I knowingly let dogecoin get attacked when I could have done something about it. Maybe it's because if Litecoin is my child, Dogecoin is my grandchild (or is it my child's dog?) The community and good will you have built in such a short time is admirable. I would hate to see it get destroyed by someone doing it for lulz. And if Dogecoin does get attacked, it will be bad for all of crypto-currency. Dogecoin introduced a lot of new people to crypto-currency. These people will be hurt the most. And that's bad for everyone. I still see a lot of confusion about merged mining, and I would like to clarify as much as I can:
This is not an offer from me or Litecoin. I am just proposing a solution. You can do whatever you want and I can't stop you.
If you do decide to merged mine, TheMage and I (and others) will do whatever we can to convince pools to merged mine.
Merged mining will fix your hashrate problem so that you would never to worry about hashrate and can concentrate on what's more important.
Merged mining does not merge our community, our devs, or anything for that matter. Litecoin users hate that just as much as you guys hate it.
Merged mining is not the only viable option. You should explore all the options and decide what's best for Dogecoin.
I truly believe something needs to be done now. You do not have much more time to wait.
Lastly, no solution will please everyone. So the dev team will need to make a decision after weighing everything. But inaction is the worst decision.
And if you have questions about how merged mining works, please read my whole merged mining AMA again. It answers all your questions about why merged mining does not hurt dogecoin price. And why merged mining is really the best solution to this unique problem. I will be around to answer any questions. (But please read the AMA first) And I am at the Chicago Bitcoin conference today and will be at CoinCongress in San Francisco on Wednesday/Thursday. If anyone wants to approach me to talk in person, I will be glad to. I don't bite... really, I don't. :) *EDIT: I tipped the top posts each 1000 doge until I ran out of coins. I got most of these coins as thanks when I did the AMA. Figure I should pass these back to people who are contributing to this conversation. Thanks! *
"Having the highest Hashrate doesn't necessarily imply the highest security"
Pardon my ignorance. I'd like to know what backs this statement. I went to look for merged mining and it does look like a winning hand for both (or all) the blockchains involved. I guess this cannot be answered in a simple way so I'll go right ahead and post in an organised way all the questions that I have in mind:
Why is this statement correct? "It doesn't necessarily imply". Can you specify when it would not be true and why not?
Why is it that Namecoin gathered so much Hashrate when compared to other merged mining coins? Is it just the first mover advantage?
Can any other coin do the same and just "turn on" the possibility to merge-mine with Bitcoin and even testnets and other SHA 256 related chains?
If yes, why don't all coins just free load off the Bitcoin hashrate power?
Why, for a brief period in time has NMC actually surpassed the hashrate of the very Bitcoin? Does this mean that all Bitcoin miners are also helping NMC but not all NMC miners are helping Bitcoin? (I'm aware it goes a bit against the whole definition of merged mining) In this case: given its low price wouldn't these people be better off just mining Bitcoin?
Without trying to sound like much of a Buzzkill, what is the incentive for miners to go out of their way to secure NMC network? With this amount of Hashrate one would think that the difficulty is through the roof although price not so much. What keeps it ticking? I notice that the hashrate goes up with that of Bitcoin's, but I doubt that the awareness does too. Bitcoin's Hashrate has evolved exponentially and so has Namecoin's. But NMC's actual popularity is not really comparable to that of BTC. Why is it that their hashrates seem to go up so tightly correlated? Are all these people merged mining without knowing?
Also, why not just have NMC alltogether and leave BTC behind? The tech is the same but this one also solves the "decentralizing DNS" issue..
Ok, these are my questions if someone is kind enough to read through and answer each. I'm sorry if I'm asking dumb questions. Thanks a lot.
The Namecoin difficulty chart provides the current Namecoin difficulty (NMC diff) target as well as a historical data graph visualizing Namecoin mining difficulty chart values with NMC difficulty adjustments (both increases and decreases) defaulted to today with timeline options of 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, and all time Current difficulty: 56851563263 (6% of Bitcoin difficulty) Block height: 286761 Market BTC-e: 0.0002 BTC/NMC (1937133.4 minutes ago) BTC-e 24h average: 0.0002 BTC/NMC BTC-e & Bitstamp: 1.0304 USD/NMC: Some links Google: search insights for "namecoin" Wikipedia: traffic statistics for the Namecoin article Reddit: r/namecoin Namecoin forum: forum.namecoin .info About Updated every 17 minutes ... Namecoin and Bitcoin next difficulty. This platform shows you information about Bitcoin and Namecoin’s difficulty through a new algorithm used to estimate next difficulty rates, which is more accurate than traditional estimations. 5. Block Explorer. Here, you have to click on the first option called “getdifficulty” and a new webpage will open with just the number you’re looking for. 6 ... Namecoin (NMC) Stats. Transactions count, value, Namecoins sent, difficulty, blocks count, network hashrate, market capitalization... Namecoin Average mining difficulty per day chart. Transactions Block Size Sent from addresses Difficulty Hashrate Price in USD Mining Profitability Sent in USD Avg. Transaction Fee Median Transaction Fee Block Time Market Capitalization Avg. Transaction Value Median Transaction Value Tweets Active Addresses Top100ToTotal Fee in Reward
Test Scanning my Stainless Steel BITCOIN Wallet - YouTube
What is Namecoin Bitcoin's First Fork BITCOIN PRICE , BITCOIN FUTURE in doubt http://youtu.be/eO-yrpQpIT8 What is NAMECOIN BITCOIN'S First Fork http://youtu.... Turn Key Bitcoin Mining Solution BITCOIN PRICE , BITCOIN FUTURE in doubt http://youtu.be/eO-yrpQpIT8 What is NAMECOIN BITCOIN'S First Fork http://youtu.be/oB... Bitcoin Cash, Alert: Mining Difficulty, Block Halving & Profitability vs. Bitcoin-BTC: https://steemit.com/@garypalmerjr We are living in very exciting times... Blockchain Wallet BITCOIN PRICE , BITCOIN FUTURE in doubt http://youtu.be/eO-yrpQpIT8 What is NAMECOIN BITCOIN'S First Fork http://youtu.be/oBkhPhu3_B4 Test ... BITCOIN PRICE , BITCOIN FUTURE in doubt http://youtu.be/eO-yrpQpIT8 What is NAMECOIN BITCOIN'S First Fork http://youtu.be/oBkhPhu3_B4 Test Scanning Stainless...