Skip to content
Blockchain LabBlockchain LabTHE VENTURE STUDIO

LibraryConsensus2017Design paperCorpus record

Merged Mining: Curse or Cure?

Merged mining. Aljosha Judmayer, Alexei Zamyatin, Nicholas Stifter, Artemios G. Voyiatzis and Edgar Weippl.

Merged mining lets the same proof of work stamp a child chain. Security is not transferred for free: the parent miners may not validate the child, and an attack on the child can be cheap in attention even when hash power is large.

A reading of the public document. Not a copy of it, and not a claim about a later network that reused the name.

A sidechain pitch that says 'secured by Bitcoin miners' has to say whether those miners validate the sidechain.
Evidence
Primary paper
Re-measured
No
Assumptions
3
Records linked
3

Code

Source, repository, and what is actually hosted

  • ePrint 2017/791https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/791
  • The source URL is not a GitHub repository. No code remote is invented.
  • Full text is not mirrored. Public availability is not a licence to copy the file onto this site.
  • Add to a reading list

01 Claim ledger

What the paper is allowed to say

Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.

  1. Claim 01 · Paper model

    The defect

    A small chain that borrows a large chain's miners looks protected. The paper asks what the parent miners actually commit to.

  2. Claim 02 · Paper model

    The rule

    Merged mining lets the same proof of work stamp a child chain. Security is not transferred for free: the parent miners may not validate the child, and an attack on the child can be cheap in attention even when hash power is large.

  3. Claim 03 · Paper model

    How it is put together

    The parent proof does not mean the parent miners executed the child. A child chain can be rewritten if its own miners are a thin slice of attention. Namecoin is the running example, not a general law.

  4. Claim 04 · Paper model

    Where the claim stops

    The paper is not a ban on merged mining.

02 Three cuts

Observation, model, falsifier

A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.

  1. 01 The defect

    Observation

    What the study says

    A small chain that borrows a large chain's miners looks protected. The paper asks what the parent miners actually commit to.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The paper is not a ban on merged mining.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Do parent miners validate the child block?

  2. 02 The rule

    Observation

    What the study says

    Merged mining lets the same proof of work stamp a child chain. Security is not transferred for free: the parent miners may not validate the child, and an attack on the child can be cheap in attention even when hash power is large.

    Model

    What has to hold

    Hash power on the parent is not the same object as honest validation of the child.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Do parent miners validate the child block?

  3. 03 How it is put together

    Observation

    What the study says

    The parent proof does not mean the parent miners executed the child. A child chain can be rewritten if its own miners are a thin slice of attention. Namecoin is the running example, not a general law.

    Model

    What has to hold

    Hash power on the parent is not the same object as honest validation of the child.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Do parent miners validate the child block?

  4. 04 Where the claim stops

    Observation

    What the study says

    The paper is not a ban on merged mining.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The paper is not a ban on merged mining.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Do parent miners validate the child block?

03 Sequence

One action, as an operating tape

  1. 01A miner includes a commitment to the child in the parent block.
  2. 02The child treats that commitment as a stamp.
  3. 03Whether the miner checked the child is outside the proof of work.
  4. 04Do parent miners validate the child block?

04 Load-bearing

The argument, and where a pitch drops it

  1. Why it is still on the desk

    The cut

    A sidechain pitch that says 'secured by Bitcoin miners' has to say whether those miners validate the sidechain.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.

  2. After the text

    The cut

    Later work on one-way pegs and blind merged mining returns to the same gap. The stamp and the check are different.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    The paper is not a ban on merged mining.

05 Register

What has to be true

  • Model · Not re-measured

    The paper is not a ban on merged mining.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    It does not measure every modern auxiliary chain.

  • Cryptography · Not re-measured

    Hash power on the parent is not the same object as honest validation of the child.

06 Divergence

What happened after the paper

Later work on one-way pegs and blind merged mining returns to the same gap. The stamp and the check are different.

A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.

07 Pre-mortem

What to check before you use the idea

  4. 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.

08 Anatomy

The paper, in the order a builder needs

The problem it names

A small chain that borrows a large chain's miners looks protected. The paper asks what the parent miners actually commit to.

What the design proposes

  • The parent proof does not mean the parent miners executed the child.
  • A child chain can be rewritten if its own miners are a thin slice of attention.
  • Namecoin is the running example, not a general law.

How the mechanism is specified

  • A miner includes a commitment to the child in the parent block.
  • The child treats that commitment as a stamp.
  • Whether the miner checked the child is outside the proof of work.

What this page does not treat as proven

  • The paper is not a ban on merged mining.
  • It does not measure every modern auxiliary chain.
  • Hash power on the parent is not the same object as honest validation of the child.

Why the desk still reads it

A sidechain pitch that says 'secured by Bitcoin miners' has to say whether those miners validate the sidechain.

09 Lexicon

Terms, opened into the record

Auxiliary proof
A parent proof of work that also stamps a child chain.
Validation
Checking the child, which the proof of work does not do by itself.

10 Repository

Every linked record on this page

Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.

Protocols

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.