Bitcoin Forum

 >:( >:( >:( >:(

we need a altcoin like yacoin but maybe better
thx!

define better ?

yacoin is good enough, i think.

Actually I am interested in this and maybe study this a little bit later..

maybe no Botnets

yep !
but Botnets and Bter .... YOU KNOW

 ;) OK

that the problem of cpu coins....

I do have an idea for a new coin, but it'll take a lot of coding, and atm I dont have the time....dont think it'd be cpu friendly though, but def asic unfriendly :D

 am working on it right now, but i wont release it until it can withstand AWS and GPU porting. that's the challenge.

Someone need to make one you solve with a pen n paper.

I like Yacoin only because --- it's CPU only at the moment.
I also like the the Proof of Stake integrated into the coin (oh yeah, it's a NVC fork).

What scares me with this coin is 'what if' someone modifies a GPU miner to use scrypt-jane.

Which leads me to the next question -- is that even likely.  
I am sure anything can be done... but can GPUs even run scrpyt-jane efficiently, or is it a waste of time.

That answer will define where YAC is likely to head in the future.

I thought even if GPU's could mine it, the gains wouldn't be the same magnitude of scrypt/sha, and that benefit would decrease over time as N increased?

Every PC have a CPU
but not every PC have a good GPU
so CPU only is better
but anti - botnets!

My point exactly... you 'might' be able to mine it with a GPU... but doing so would be a complete waste of time.  Mining any other chain would always be more profitable that GPU mining YAC.

With that being said -- that kind of sets YAC aside into a unique category.
CPU only -- with proof if stake.

IMHO -- that really is a great combination.

My question is, why?

One of the advantages of YAC was that anybody could supposedly mine for it because it's much easier to CPU mine when compared to GPU mining. However, no average (non techy) user has a computer with a processor that has more than 4 to 8 cores, toping out around 50 KH/s . This compared to people that have access to (whether legitimate or not) massive blocks of processors that can do 100 times what an average user would ever be able to reach. Not to mention if it ever became profitable cloud computing services would completely outdo any other way of mining.

At least with GPU friendly coins there is the potential for somebody to go out and spend 1000$ and make 100$ a month mining. If a CPU coin ever became truly viable, the only people to whom it would be worth mining would be people that already have access to massive resources or have the knowhow to set up cloud computing to mine.

yeah
botnet friendly

As for cloud computing.. I can't see that as a strong argument.
Someone who has the resources can go out and but 100 GPUs, FPGA's or ASIC's and put them online... we face that problem now.

I like that it's resistant to GPU/FPGA and ASICS (I own GPUs and FPGAs -- and I still like the concept).
However, I see how GPU/FPGA/ASIC mining kind of solves the botnet issue... or, slows it down to a degree.

I see how the botnet issue is a wrinkle in the fabric of CPU only coins.
I can definitely see how someone 'could' solve this issue in the client -- but as soon as someone creates a pool for it, it's all over. 

Perhaps a client/pool that 'forces' a unique password for each miner... and impose password changing rules.
That could potentially shut down a botnet from mining  (solo or pool).

I think you might just be better off buying yourself a GPU. I liked that YAC was "average user" friendly, but ANY coin will rapidly become only viable and profitable to mine by those with the knowledge or the hardware. This is capitalism. It is how it works and it is how it HAS to work.

I like cryptocoins because of the ingenuity of the coins and the patterns you see developing in the markets (boom and bust) and the communities (FUD etc). I feel like it lets me see inside capitalism in a way that is normally only open to high flying execs. I'm not a capitalist though, quite the opposite, so I don't agree that this is a good model but it IS the model that cryptocoins exist within.

The only way (I can think of) you could make sure that everyone was getting a fair deal would be to distribute coins from blocks across the whole network each time a block was solved. This would of course require everyone had only 1 address, and how you'd ensure that is another problem that I don't know the answer to.

You could call it SocCoin. 0.01 YAC to the first person to guess what thats short for.

I was thinking more of a pool that could block ip blocks...ie only one miner from said block, the others have to wait in a queue.....

socialist

CPU is closest to be most fair game but AWS is problem. Botnets not that much, they deal with lot of crappy processors but aws has some serious power that is unfortunately exploited by some individuals with yac.

but the botnets are all over the country.

not really exploited.  anyone can sign up and pay for it.  thats like saying the rich have too much of an advantage with GPU mining cus they can buy more.

try but it'd shut down most of the aws ones....their a limited set of ip blocks

as promised :)

This is a good idea, but breaks down with people who have dynamic IPs that change regularly.
Still the same concept -- try to force unique values in the mining process to stop botnets.

sweet....thx

Oh no way I didn't even see that, Keeping my YAC in the county!

Of course anyone can do it but that doesn't mean it wasn't exploited. Anyway, it's semantic stuff, you should know what I want to say :)

Fair game is close to impossible at this time as computing power is there and easy to get, specially if you have some spare bucks :)..

I was reading some threads back then when Tenebrix and Fairbrix were released, pretty much everyone was at same hashing power - 3-4kh, lol, nowadays huge power is few clicks away.

aye thats why you'd need a queing system....
your miner glitches off, you lose your place in the queue....

you could maybe add a vip whitelist, for 1 ip, that is exempt from the queue, donating 10% of mining or something...

Yes it would limit the coin production....

Just set a ceiling on total hash power allowed per host.

per host wont work...
you just make more, smaller aws instances

That's probably a fair point, but I did decide to actually do the math. It seems to be about 20$ per KH right now buying the most capable commercial intel processors and it looks like, at the current difficulty of YAC, a 250$ CPU will net you about .82 coins a day. Even if the coin gains enough value to be worth a dollar, it would take about a year to earn back the value of the CPU. And that's at the current difficulty. If it actually took off, the difficulty would of course be much higher.

Compare that to mining BTC or LTC where you can get a 250$ GPU that will net you 50$ a month and start making money after half a year.

What I'm saying is, CPU mining will never be worth investing in unless cloud mining becomes profitable. The only reason to CPU mine is if you already have the resources available. No one's going to go out and spend several thousand dollars when they know they certainly will not make their money back for at least a year, and possibly never.

Trace the source of those Super high hashes and turn up with crowbars?

Levelling the playing field. Luddite style.

So. It costs $$$ to run each instance. If someone wants to set up 20 instances at 500 k/h each... so be it.  

Why is CPU-friendly a desired quality? CPU-friendly is botnet-friendly.

Perhaps... but the market price drives profitability.
It's possible a coin could outpace BTC on profitability... even if it's CPU mined.

However, I am curious to know what people consider a 'botnet'.
I am an AWS subscriber -- and I do use one instance that has 30 cores.
Is it completely profitable to mine this way, no.. not at the moment... but it's fun to play with,

However, does this make me a bot net?
According to who you ask, the answer may be yes.

Now.. I could just as easily go to a thrift store and buy up 20 machines, plug em all in an have the same result.

Am I a bot net now?  
No, now I am a farm.

I don't think tagging cloud computing as a botnet is valid.

Now, malware that infects hundreds, or thousands, of machines without the users knowledge... now that is a true botnet.

Well, SHA-256D is ASIC/FPGA friendly.
Scrypt is GPU friendly.

I think the point is to move back to an area where extraneous hardware won't give you a severe advantage.
Now, I am saying that I am guessing this is the point.. so save the flames!!   ;D

its a very complicated thing, some of the original files people where using for altcoins have been forked and tweeked so badly its a sesspool of crap. I like Yacoin, but any coder can see the hell he put in that code, i am now searching for the original Satoshi ones. Also instead of scrypt-jane, i think i'll opt for an algorithm that will cut out AWS or at least severly limit it, GPU's are a no-no also.

I think I would actually propose that there are already multi CPU blocks which would essentially function as ASICs when compared with the effect bitcoin ASICs will have. Any normal set up will only be able to do 1/100 of the power that is available to people with specialized hardware. This really already exists in the CPU world with industrial strength 60 core block like the xeon phi, making "normal" mining already obsolete.