ASICs in Zcash Software / Proof of Work/ Proof of Stake/ Fork Discussion

Mining
21

Any takers? current generation ASIC’s for Zcash POW is a memory optimization thing which is quite simple to advance with newer memory technology, a more complicated POW is needed like “Image-based Proof of Work” which can leverage current generation GPU’s and future generation GPU’s; billions of dollars are spent to develop these GPU’s to process graphics and a image based POW leveraging this will be equal to any current or future ASIC’s miners that can be developed.

Or maybe I have to create my own Crypto currency ;0)

1 Like
22

It is the first compromise I’ve heard that doesn’t favor any given side so yes, of all worlds. GPU miners still get an equal share as the ASIC users. It also gives a route to POS when the mining phase is essentially over (at some point down the road). I’m not looking at the profitability. I’m purely looking at for what @Zooko suggested, a compromise somewhere in between. I still favor honoring ASIC resistance regardless, but I think anyone could easily say that is my own bias, which would be true (I dislike companies like Bitmain). I won’t hide that feeling, or try to justify it to anyone else, I have already given my reasoning behind it numerous times. This thread just wants to focus on the viability of possible alternatives…so I’m going to stick to that.

It’s a solid idea at least, doesn’t make it “The” idea to go with.

1 Like
23

I just came across this and while i posted in allready in another Zcash topic i think it will fit here as well.

PASCAL A1 ASIC,
Claims are possible Algos to mine with this miner: SHA256, Scrypt, X11, Qubit, Quark, Ethash, Blake2b,
Equihash, Cryptonite, Lyra, Neoscript, Groestl, Pascal, Lbry, Black14r

Now my first thought when i saw this was, this is a scam, but on reading further i found 3 things interesting:

first the Algos mentioned above, exactly Algos we have now new released Asics: Ethash, Equihash, Cryptonite Pascal, Lbry, Blake*,

2nd thing, the mentioned performance: Hash Rate (±5%) ETH:520MH/s, Zcash:10000 Sol/s. Ok the hashrate for ETH is a bit off compared to E3, but the Zcash one fits perfectly that of the Z9.

3rd thing, Installed Memory 32GB

I have no idea if this project is real, a scam, or just that a project. However, the 10.000 Sol/s catched my attention as we now know it’s possible. Could it be that these new Asics use new chips like that Sophon Chip, something similar that makes them multi algo miners? Or are they even hybrids btw an Asic and a FPGA?

24

Juyst came across this information:

Extracted @BITMAINtech #X3 firmware - noticed default XMR @AntPoolofficial -Firmware was also compiled one week after @monerocurrency V7 fork. Possible the X3 will still mime Monero? Someone want to try the hidden Antpool address? “stratum+tcp://stratum-xmr.antpool.com:5555”

Anybody want to give it a try?

25

That Pascal one is the one we saw last year…but it never actually appeared. I think that specific one is vaporware and/or scam.

26

I just got now by accident aware of it searching for something different.
However, while my thought as well was it’s a scam on first view later i wasn’t that sure anymore.

Even checked their contact info which at least does not look like the ones from Scam Sites. They have a team, don’t hide behind anonymity and some other things. One thing i believe too is that they have no mass production to lack of finances. But it could be some excist. After these guys are pretty sure they can make something like that, it’s near to think other companies with more resources can as well. Just as a thought.

27

This flowchart for how major upgrades get rolled out in Ethereum seems useful.

image
image1200×1014 80.9 KB

(Source: https://twitter.com/danfinlay/status/991521043939504129)

Aside from the particular names of the groups, it seems like some process like that will inevitably be the process for upgrading any decentralized system.

3 Likes
28

It is an interesting idea. The long term effects only time will tell. Whatever they choose, the Monero experience shows that people will fork off to do whatever they prefer, to varying degrees of success.

As for what effect it will have on GPU profitability – in the short term it depends on how many ASIC miners are already out there. If, as people suspect, Bitmain already has a substantial portion of the net hash rate, splitting the reward into two distinct POW algorithms might increase GPU profitability in the short term.

In the long term this will preserve GPU mining profitability until someone develops an ASIC for the secondary POW scheme.

As for security, the more people mining, with hardware from neutral, uninterested sources (who have have no incentive to game the system) the better.

1 Like
29

While it looks good on paper i’am not sure if it’s in generally that usefull or just in some cases:

Some concerns i have are:

  • the time it takes for this. Time in my opinion is underestimated in many branches even more in branches like crypto where it makes a huge difference if you are ahead with inventions, upgrades, tech …

  • I have in generally my problems when it comes to desicions for a project or a company. While a board of the company 100% is trying always to find the best solution for a given company i’am not that convinced when it comes to “everyone” like shwon in the graphic. Now if that everybody is/are “shareholders” than it would be a little bit different, but not necessary very different.

  • What means the “All Core Devs Call” exactly? Is it by majority or must All agree as it suggests to me? If it’s the majority ok, but there will be always some unhappy devs than. IF all must agree, it might be very time consuming again to unite and convince every dev.

  • As it’s from the Ethereum Project. What would happen if 2/3 Devs agree but Vitalik not? Or all Devs agree but Vitalik not?

  • What is needed to make a Proposal from anyone? Can anyone make a day 50 proposals and what is in the Discussion needed that it gets further to the All Core Devs Call?

  • As everything in life, it’s a coin with 2 sides, one side has a good portion of decentralizing, but the other is in my opinion slowing down faster possible progress.

  • Maybe because i run since ever my own businesses i’am a bit biased when it comes to decision making/taking. Most times when i regret something or made a worng decision it is when i listened someone that gave good advices but had not take any responsibility for it later. In the meaning, it’s easy to give/make advices or porposals and give directions but the responsibility is at the ones that sit at the top of a given business. In case of something going wrong nobody will make the average joe with proposal #2113 held responsible. That is one of the problems i see and suffered my own in the past.

  • I personally would favor specialised expert boards for a given sector, for example Marketing, Developement, Community, Exchanges, Tech, whatever is needed. The main reason for this is that an expert is just an expert, while we, the average joe, are not aware of many things while calling for whatever. The 2000 post thread as it showed. Every side throwing in whatever rumours, myths, believs, predictions and the list goes on and one. This mostly would not like that when experts discuss a given matter as they are more tied to facts and real arguments and have a more professional approach and decisionmaking than us, the average joes driven by total different emotions and reasons.
    These expert boards/groups eventually could let “anyone/community” review a given proposal/approach and eventually discuss if it’s doable or not.

Just some points that came immediatly in mind viewing that ethereum “system”.

1 Like
30

Hi Zooko,

I have quoted your last post to me in the lets talk about asics thread here in this thread. I hope that is okay. I am trying to keep this as concise as possible.

Your response to how the network can handle protocol upgrades when it has asics is

I don’t agree with an idea that I’ve heard some people say that having ASICs on the network makes it harder to change the protocol.

This is your reasoning:

Protocol changes are accepted or rejected by the economic community — people who accept other people’s money as valid money based on one blockchain or another. Miners (whether GPU, ASIC, or something else) will follow along with whatever the economic community decides.

These statements disagree with this statement…

Aside from the particular names of the groups, it seems like some process like that will inevitably be the process for upgrading any decentralized system.

If you look at that chart, Miners are only mentioned twice, however it shows that miners AND users both need to accept the fork for it to be successful. If the miners OR the users do not update then the fork is “contentious”. Why do you think this would not be an issue for zcash? Does the client update somehow force the users and the miners to play along? What happens if the update invalidates over half of the network hash rate?

Who are you defining as the “economic community?” surely miners are part of this?

Thanks.

1 Like
31

Hi! As I wrote this reply then I decided you are right. If there is nobody with substantial stake who opposes a particular change then it is non-contentious. Examples of this include the Ethereum Homestead and Ethereum Metropolis-Byzantium network upgrades, various Ethereum emergency bugfix upgrades, and at least one Bitcoin emergency bugfix upgrade. I expect the Zcash Overwinter and Sapling network upgrades to fall into this category — nobody will seriously oppose them.

This is the lower right-hand quadrant of

friendly-fork
friendly-fork1250×831 79.6 KB
(from A Future Friendly Fork; note: written January 2017, before the Bitcoin Blocksize Debate moved from the upper-right quadrant to the upper-left quadrant. Also by the way I saw that there was an ETC presentation at a recent Ethereum conference, so maybe the ETH-ETC split is migrating from upper-left to lower-left!)

If there is an economic interest that would lose due to a change, and they think they can potentially benefit more than they would lose by opposing it, then it is contentious. Same with if there is a social faction that is ideologically opposed and is willing to fight. Then we’re on the left hand side of the picture, where there will be two blockchains, although I still think we might be about to hit the lower-left quadrant — a Friendly Fork — instead of the upper-left — a community schism like BTC vs. BCH.

Anyway, I guess this means you are right and I was wrong — as time goes by the amount of support for an ASIC-Friendly Zcash blockchain does grow, but not because of the increased hashpower (which I think has next to no effect on the way this kind of thing plays out) but because of the increased economic commitment!

32

Bottom-line: I guess my current stance is that people are mistaken when they think the hashpower of miners influences outcomes of such a governance question. But they are actually right in a way, because miners have an economic incentive and economic incentives do influence such decisions.

The hashpower of ASIC miners is greater than that of GPU miners because of more efficient technology, but the upside economic incentives — how much they stand to gain — are equivalent independent of the technology. However the downside — how much they stand to lose — is greater for ASIC miners since they have fewer alternative uses of their hardware. (This would change if there were another coin that were more valuable that used Equihash-200,9, but I don’t expect that to happen.)

Finally and crucially there is the issue of decentralization of the economic interest. Currently GPU miners are numerous and ASIC miners are few. If that changes and a lot of people buy ASIC miners, then I guess we can expect more and more voices in here arguing vigorously for protection of their economic interests.

Finally an even more fundamental fact: the economic power of another faction can cause the creation of a new branch of the blockchain even if you don’t approve of that branch, but it cannot force you to stop using your preferred branch of the blockchain! As Nathan Wilcox said just before the initial launch of the Zcash blockchain: “It’s all opt-in.”

7 Likes
33

If you tell this, please be more precise: on which algos “GPU miner are numerous and ASIC miners are few”. Eg on Equihash it’s true because Z9 ASIC is not really on sales.
I dont think it’s really fair to let everybody purchase Z9 ASIC and then release an ASIC-resistance update. Be fair…if you want ASIC protection - then provide public statement “Yes we will fork” or “No, we will not fork”

2 Likes
34

non public statement is also a statement.
If I were in Zooko shoes, (and If) my decision was ASIC friendly (+PoS), my strategy was keep GPU miners as long as possible also adapt ASIC as slow as possible, so any short term announcement is painful. If it’s his decision (?), and if target is “PoS with a solid ASIC mining system” Zcash Team have around 1 year to solve PoS problems and get rid of GPU minings.

35

When the coin says ASIC resistance on its main page and FAQs whos fault is that for buying the ASIC then? The people that are purchasing the Z9 know the risk they are taking, its a gamble it will payoff even with no fork.(Bitmain having a 50k-100k sol Z9big). Noone is forcing them people to buy a Z9 anyway…

I hope people dont get screwed over buying the Z9minis, but to expect Zcash just to be like ASICs are here guys ohh well, guess we are done with ASIC resistance…That would not be fair to all the current GPU miners that are MUCH more invested then anyone buying ASICs right now.

Currently GPUs are a good choice for PoW, they can adapt and change with the network and are widly available to consumers.

2 Likes
36

Yes, but now the zcash is’nt ASI resistance and it big question if such resistance will be really realized.
Now I see many of doubts in the words of Devs.

37

It’s a debate. Some of the devs don’t want to fight it, work on other things and let whatever happens happen. Other devs see that would be a bad thing to do, either because they understand what ASIC will do in the long run, or they just can’t justify betraying the vast majority of the community. Either way, at this point it seems they are paralyzed and can’t come to a decision one way or the other…which is a problem.

38

While i think that the devs have to investigate the issue, possibilites, make some research, whatever … I agree with you that slowly but surely they should at least make a fix date like : “In 10 days our research is finished and we will make a final decision”, just as an example.

I also have a feeling that there are some internal discussion, be it internal btw. the Devs or Zcash vs. Foundation, which doesn’t make it easier at all. It’s a tough situation for sure… But yes, as i said i agree with you, the sooner everybody gets a straight answer, the better i think as well, no matter if it’s pro or anti asic.

39

I said all at Let’s talk about ASIC mining. I prefer ASIC resistance, half a year algo changing. Or you can make something new like: “Proof-of-Node”, rewards only for full nodes on-line time, don’t matter stake amount.
p.s. I see the future: new small pocket lowpower Linux based devices for zcach full node from different companies, many full node VM in cloud services, this is true decentralization :grinning:
Can you give me 1% for this idea? :wink:

1 Like
40

I see only a profit for zcash and other who will do ASIC resistance. Increase of popularity and additional support by necommer. ASICs are a “sweet poison” for decentralized currency.