Bitcoin Forum

I know they were developed with CPU mining to save energy, but why not use zero energy and go back to bitcoin merged mining algorithm.  FPGAs can always and will be used to mine these coins, which should use even less energy than CPUs.  Using 2 technologies to mine coins wastes energy.  To separate you from the crowd, lower the mining reward to 1 with the update to create a real low inflation coin as suggested in the deflation coin thread.

Mining i0c, nmc, and btc at bitparking.

Please stop posting.

GFY.

They were not designed to save energy. They cannot do GPU merge mining. And block rewards will not be reduced to 1.

Solidcoin 1 was GPU mining, no reason he can't switch the algorithm back, compress the block chain, and merge mine with all his brother coins.

LOL. Why don't you start your own coin?

I think you misunderstand why small cache unfriendly chains even exist at all.  They exist because some people lack GPU, and don't think it is fair that other people can mine more than then them.  Thats it.  That is the grand lofty vision of CPU based chains.  So with that perspective what purpose would modifying CPU based chains to be GPU merged mined serve.   You could just mine Bitcoins.

I believe, the main purpose was to save energy. I will have to look back at the solidcoin thread.

Steel- save yourself the brain sweat of reading anything about sc. It was, is and always will be, nothing but a criminal effort by an evil little schemer to set up his own pool of patsies to mine for him. That was true for 1.0 and doubly true for 2.0 when he crafted an even broader pack of lies to support his criminal efforts.

Your desire, while deep in its passion, for a "depression-centric" coin is strong, but no developer of an existing coin is going to radically shift the conceptual basis, or even the flat out greedy scam, behind their creation to fit your economic model.

Create your own... it's as simple as clone, advertise and release. If the world like's your flavor of mouse trap, they will flock to your door.

That is nonsense.  Even if each individual miner was more efficient the network isn't any more efficient.   Strength comes from increasing the cost for the attacker.  If each node is cheaper to run (total amortized hardware cost + electrical cost) then you need more nodes to acheive the same level of strength. 

Actually by artificially limiting hardware choices it is more likely the chain will be less efficient.  For example Bitcoin went from 0.02MH/W on CPU to 2.0 MH/W on GPU to 20MH/W on FPGA.   Bitcoin isn't a "GPU chain" it is simply a blockchain that can run on a variety of hardware.  Obviously as time goes on the hardware choices only become more efficient so the network gains efficiency over time. 

Had Bitcoin been constructed to only work on CPU it never would have had the 100x increase in MH/W by using GPU nor the 1000x increase in MH/W by using FPGA.  The artificial limit would have also artificially limited efficiency.

So once again the purpose of GPU-unfriendly chains is to ensure more efficient hardware doesn't eclipse the hardware owned by the promoters ... CPUs.

Death and Taxes I think you win.  But an attacker can take down either network I think if they have unlimited resources like the government.  Maybe not SC.

Really? Unlimited resources could not take down sc?

How is the view on your knees in front of rs?

I believe he said ”can” not ”can't”.

Edit: nvm I missed the last sentence!

name it meregedCoin