Quote from: markm on Today at 07:59:36 AM

Quote from: Cannvas on Today at 04:09:05 AM

Thank you for your feedback! While SHA256d may seem traditional, we believe it provides proven security and reliability.

Only while a majority of the world's SHA256d mining-power mines it.

I saw no mention of merged mining, and some have argued that even with merged mining there remains some possibility that some of the miners might rebel as it were since it costs them almost nothing to merged mine it for evil rather than for good as it were - devote their merged mining power to double-spend etc.

So maybe even better than merged mining if one wishes to enjoy the security provided by the vast power the world devotes to SHA256d mining might be to simply use bitcoin's blockchain to post checkpoints as it were, small proofs of the integrity of your own chain so far type of thing.

You could still use SHA256d on the side so to speak but doing so could, if not done by merged mining, actually divert some of the world's SHA256d mining power rather than leave it securing the world's strongest SHA256d chain so that that chain (bitcoin's) is as strong as possible thus helping it make via some kind of checkpoints or proofs system your own chain secure.

Basically proof of work is insanely expensive so it might best be re-used rather than attempting to duplicate it or divert computing power to more and more variations of it (scrypt etc etc etc).Using Bitcoin's blockchain for checkpoints does sound like an interesting way to enhance the security of our chain without diverting SHA256d power. We are also considering other approaches, including merged mining, though your points about risks like double-spending are certainly important.

We appreciate your ideas and will take them into account in our further development.

-MarkM-