10:51:27 <Inge-> hyc: https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/11880/build-a-working-game-of-tetris-in-conways-game-of-life
10:55:00 <Inge-> Wen RandomX in Conways game of life?
11:14:22 <sech1> I think someone built even the whole CPU emulator in game of life
11:14:53 <selsta> someone built game of life in game of life
11:15:02 <Inge-> game-of-life-ception
11:15:17 <sech1> https://www.nicolasloizeau.com/gol-computer
11:18:07 <sech1> Only 2,000,000 generations to go through 1 CPU cycle, lol
11:18:31 <Inge-> game-of-life in game-of-life as proof-of-work
11:28:26 <gingeropolous> so wownero is contemplating what to do as a small network living alongside a large network that both use the same hardware for their PoW
11:31:29 <moneromooo> I'd merge mine.
11:32:28 <moneromooo> Though it has the "only one large pool supports it" failure mode, which is bad...
11:32:52 <moneromooo> But the one pool can already screw you if it wants to anyway, so...
11:33:42 <moneromooo> I'd like to see coins merge mine with monero. It's another incentive based reason to mine monero.
11:34:41 <moneromooo> Though I suppose if many do, you might end up with spammy coinbases since it requires a hash per coin I think.
11:35:01 * moneromooo needs to look at how this works exactly
12:33:25 <sech1> merge mining adds more bloat to the other coin, not Monero
12:36:06 <moneromooo> Interesting. That's great news :)
12:58:34 <sech1> It's more like they mine Monero's PoW but have their own difficulty. In case solution difficulty is enough for Monero, it'll also mine Monero block
12:58:47 <sech1> Not sure, maybe they'll also add some more extra bytes to that block though
13:00:47 <moneromooo> AFAIK, they do. I assumed you knew better so changed my belief, but now I'm not so sure.
13:01:35 <moneromooo> I found an explanation for something that's merged mine with bitcoin and they seem to say they do stuf something in the bitcoin coinbase.
13:02:01 <moneromooo> 48 bytes for that particular case.
13:23:49 <sech1> I guess they need to add some reference/id to their own chain in the mined block
13:24:38 <tromp_> they need to commit to the new block on other chain
13:24:57 <tromp_> usually by a 32 byte hash
13:56:17 <gingeropolous> there's a strong anti merge mine sense: https://github.com/wownero/meta/issues/27
13:56:28 <gingeropolous> ive been trying to mull over its validity
14:24:49 <moneromooo> So the objections are basically "not independent of monero" and "prevents regular joes from mining in practice due to high diff".
14:25:11 <moneromooo> Pool owners wouldn't have to run another daemon, since merge mining's optional.
14:25:51 <moneromooo> There's the point of getting an advantage if you do run that other daemon, I guess.
14:27:35 <jwinterm> yes, that sums up the objections I think
14:28:03 <jwinterm> also that it makes mobile verification worse than already is because monero randomx is bit slower than tweaked random-wow I think
14:31:02 <moneromooo> Actually, the several daemon is a fair argument, since if we get a few dozen merge mined coins, monero pool owners will start not bothering anymore, so there'll be a "we get the best ones only" effect.
14:33:09 <hyc> what? they'll stop running fullnodes?
14:33:29 <hyc> relying on other peoples' nodes would increase their latency
14:33:56 <moneromooo> No. I meant that monero pool owners may start merge mining until we get lots of merge mined coins. Basically it doesn't scale.
14:34:32 <moneromooo> may use merge mining for the first few coins, but not after proliferation.
14:34:55 <hyc> maybe it should only be an incubation mechanism
14:35:07 <hyc> once a coin grows to some level, it stops merge mining and goes off on its own
14:36:21 <moneromooo> Unclear how to measure growth though. Number of blocks not attached to the parent chain ?
14:36:25 <jwinterm> hyc, I don't think that has ever happened in all of mining history
14:37:16 <hyc> we've already made mining history once, so?
14:42:59 <jwinterm> I'm just saying, history says that coins begin life merge mining or move over to merge mining
14:43:14 <jwinterm> I don't think I've ever heard of a coin "graduating" from merge mining to independent mining
14:43:44 <hyc> don't you find that puzzling?
14:43:56 <hyc> coins merge-mine because they're not strong enough to stand on their own
14:44:13 <hyc> that would seem to me to be more relevant when they're new, not after they've matured
14:47:20 <jwinterm> yea, I guess it just becomes a crutch and for the most part they fade into obscurity anyway
14:47:42 <jwinterm> namecoin, dogecoin, and rootstock are probably the only three of real note
14:56:33 <hyc> anyway, how many new coins would we expect to show up wanting to merge mine?
14:56:46 <hyc> per year, say
14:57:00 <moneromooo> I have a feeling once a few do it, there'll be a glut.
14:57:37 <sech1> guys
14:57:38 <sech1> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226080.0
14:57:47 <hyc> if we say "we can take on X coins at once, some existing coin must graduate out before new ones can be accepted"
14:57:49 <sech1> they are already here
14:58:14 <moneromooo> You don't really accept, unless you parse coinbase and whitelist.
14:59:26 <sech1> Monero can't really control who merge mines what otherwise it's not permissionless
14:59:40 <moneromooo> Any idea what this is about ? > This is slightly different than merged mining, in that BBP's blocks are now solved with an equation that prevents pre-image attacks.
14:59:46 <sech1> No idea
14:59:51 <sech1> that coin is... weird
15:00:13 <hyc> BiblePay. might as well go full literal on being a cult
16:08:34 <kinghat[m]> can coins merge mine on merged mined coins?
16:08:58 <moneromooo> I can't think of a reason against it.
16:09:07 <moneromooo> (a technical one)