So you think that something is true, without evidence, and are too lazy to spend two minutes Googling to see whether it is indeed true, so you will carry on with your original beliefs without evidence?
No wonder you support ASICs. You have a lot of incorrect assumptions and are too lazy to see if your assumptions are correct.
P.S. It would take you less than a minute to check Ebay for used GPUs and to observe that they are indeed holding most of their original value.
not the point at all…
No, because the attackers know how many confirmations the exchanges wait for, so the attackers can just make their 51% attack cover that number of confirmations.
Why do you say this?
Confirmed numbers based on their known Mining addresses. We had talked about this before in the thread, and someone chimed in that it was closer to 60% when you take into account their pool, and other interests. I chose to go with the 30% as it reflects what they can probably realistically directly control.
Gives a break down, please note BTC.com is owned by Bitmain, as well as Antpool. They also have interests in some of the other players (not necessarily a controlling interest, but interests). Just with their own pool and Ant pool alone they can command 41.5% of the hash power. But again, I do not ever see Bitmain making a play like this. It’s just bad business.
OK, but I find it strange that exchanges do exactly this if it doesn’t help at all. At the very least the attackers would have to rent hashpower for a longer time period, costing them more money. However, Ethereum has done just fine without any ASIC’s. ASIC’s might help cover some of the security shortfall in the short term, but it is primarily the value of the coin that determines a cryptos security potential.
I’m confused. I thought you were talking about Zcash miners, but now it appears you’re talking about Bitcoin pools? I haven’t seen any evidence of Bitmain (or anyone else) having a substantial amount of Zcash hashrate in ASIC miners. I’ve heard many allegations and speculations of this (about Bitmain and about others), both publicly and privately, as well as allegations of the opposite — that Bitmain did not have ASIC Zcash mining.
So far the only hard evidence I’ve seen is home - zcash foundation, which says that 70–80% of the Zcash mining as of the end of May was probably GPU mining, since individual miners appeared to be < 8 ksol/s and since they made payouts to the GPU mining software devs. One of the authors thinks — and I agree — that much of the remaining 20–30% is also GPU mining that just doesn’t pay the GPU software dev fees.
I don’t understand the arguments against making the Equihash parameters more memory hard.
Isn’t it better to have both GPU miners and ASIC miners supporting the network instead of 100% ASIC miners?
The former is what would likely happen with a higher memory requirement, just as we’re seeing in Ethereum. The latter is what will happen if the memory requirements remain low.
So if security is your biggest concern, you should support switching to more memory hard parameters.
I’m not a fan of the name calling and @Zooko and the team have clearly done a lot for the project, which is why it’s so valuable to mine.
What I don’t understand is why Zooko is acting as if the default position is to not fork to get rid of ASICs. I think the default position should be to fork and those promoting ASIC mining should have to convince the developers otherwise.
Sorry for confusing you. I was weighing in on this comment:
Did not have anything to do with equihash/Zcash, but that Bitmain could actually pull a 51% on BItcoin…but I don’t ever see that happening, as that coin is it’s main business…and that would not make any business sense to do.
It was in response to this post:
Where this was said in reponse:
BlockquoteBitmain can 51% attack ALL ASIC coin (except bitcoin) RIGHT NOW…(maybe even bitcoin) …its only Bitmain good will that he is not doing it but as seen on equicash coins that sad they will fork Bitmain can do it if you angry them…
In few months if algo dont change Bitmain will easily have 80% off hashrate…they added 100mh in just one day which is 1/4 off all hash rate off Zcash.
since they made payouts to the GPU mining software devs
A seriously stealthy ASIC operation could take pains to make their mining look indistinguishable from a huge GPU crowd, which includes “donating” 2% of their rewards to the various miner devs…
Yeah, maybe a little far fetched. But not unimaginable either…
Yep, this was noted in the paper:
It is important to note that our current methods can be ”fooled” by careful ASIC miner and the methods are also not fine-grained enough to detect ASIC miner testing of few % of the total hash-rate. This is a work for further research.
I just learned that there is a coin called “Zero” that uses Equihash with different parameters.
Perhaps someone could test whether the Z9 can mine it?
If the Z9 can’t mine it, then it should be very easy to get rid of these ASICs.
Do you have a link to Zero?
Here is a link to the announcement thread: [ANN] ZERO - fork of Zcash with harder mining params
Here is a pool if anyone wants to try to mine it: https://zero.suprnova.cc/
Here’s their new thread
nice tweet
Zero has A(192,7) Equihash params.
It is good informations Zero has another params. and it’s realized.
But, problem is they needs highend GPU over 8GB GDDR.
Good informations to me.
above I’ve replied yesterday. I didn’t know above params, I’ve studied equihash whitepaper.
Interesting as it 86’s all the Nvidia mining cards. Iirc they only have 4gb. Not sure about the P102 though.