3.5 Failure of Merged Mining The security of a blockchain depends on the relative compute power of miners and the cost for a single party to employ more computing power than the rest of the network. New, smaller blockchains have a bootstrap- ping problem, however: in the initial days of a new blockchain, it would be relatively easy for a single party to take it over, since the total compute power on the blockchain is not yet large enough to prevent this. To address this problem, Satoshi Nakamoto (author of Bit- coin) introduced “merged mining” , where an alter- nate blockchain can allow Bitcoin miners to participate in the new network without requiring them to spend extra compute cycles. The miners can make extra profits on the new blockchain without adding computational overhead. With a merge-mined cryptocurrency, the security of the blockchain is typically a subset of the “main blockchain,” because in practice not all miners of the main blockchain go through the trouble of setting up merged mining. Namecoin switched to merged mining with Bitcoin to increase security of its blockchain . Namecoin is the oldest and largest merged-mined cryptocurrency and inspired other cryptocurrencies to consider it as well. One of our key findings is that merged mining is currently failing in practice: the leading merged-mined blockchain, Namecoin, is vulnerable to the 51% attack (Section 3.1). Moreover, merged-mining provided a false sense of security. F2Pool controls 30-35% computing power of Bitcoin, but over 60% of Namecoin’s comput- ing power through merged mining, leaving Namecoin vulnerable to a 51% attack. Unless the merged mined cryptocurrency can consistently attract a very high ra- tio of main blockchain miners to support their software, merged mining will not keep it safe from 51% attacks. Lesson #5: At the current stage in the evolution of blockchains, there are not enough compute cy- cles dedicated to mining to support multiple secure blockchains. The respective financial capital attached to blockchains relative to Bitcoin supports this argument: as of Feb 2016, Bitcoin has a 5.9 billion USD mar- ket cap, which accounts for 89% of the market cap of all 500+ blockchains combined, while the second and third largest market caps are 3.2% and 2.6% of Bit- coin, respectively . While multiple secure blockchains may be possible after the technology matures and enjoys wider adoption, in the near future, Bitcoin’s blockchain is the only one that is prohibitively expensive to attack.
I mean, I don't know for sure that he "lost faith" but he was super gung ho about Elastos and then just completely disappeared, so read that however you want. He probably just lost so much money he gave up, cryptocurrency isn't for everyone. It's volatile AF, but volatility is what makes pei extremely wealthy if they play it right.
He immigration to Norway to study bachelor degree in Satellite communication engineering field He sold his every cryptocurrency investement Except BTC This is why , he is not here now But , IF he promise to you something else Please tell me
I do understand we are all frustrated with the market. I agree that Rong does not understand and like the cryptocurrency world. But he should respect the fact the elastos got it's funding through this and the loyal supporters have been burned
Why Elastos was not designed so from the beginning?Or why it was not designed at all as a "proof of stake" coin, like the ones you mentioned?There were reasons for this.You can increase the power of early investors indefinitely, but this can eventually centralize a given cryptocurrency.Even in the case of Bitcoin, which is a purely PoW currency, there is a huge advantage of early investors in terms of control over coin supply.Despite the fact that Bitcoin early investors do not enjoy the benefits of compound interest and reinvested profits..But only in the case of the PoW currency it does not affect security!I hope that the miners will accumulate some ELA and, if necessary, will be able to veto the proposal that reduces their importance.
Currency issuing should not be the responsibility of a private company, I would agree.Even if this issuing is carried out by tokenization.However, it can be useful for Elastos if there will not be better options.I am referring to the situation already discussed here.Merchant offering payments through a fiat gateway, in fact accepts payment for goods in a cryptocurrency, and is exposed to exchange rate risk.In extreme situations it can be several days (in the case of a long weekend).The risk of using USDT may be lower for the merchant than the exchange rate risk.I think we must at least provide them with a choice.