Bitcoin Forum

I saw many altcoins say they are ASIC resistant because of X11 and SHA3. First time, I saw this statement, I decided to keep quite a while, because I think no one will believe that, turn out I saw much topics that claim X11 and SHA3 are algorithm for ASIC resistant. I think before this believes go wire spread more than the current situation, I need to do something. To let people know, what they are believe is TOTALLY wrong......WHY ?

X11 and SHA3 ( Keccak ) are not ASIC resistant at ALL, according to NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), if an algorithm wants to become SHA3 candidate during that time; one thing that algorithm must have is it need to be able to create by ASIC. AND every algorithm in X11 used to be SHA3 candidate until Keccak wins the competition and become SHA3.


Reference paper : http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/Round2/Aug2010/documents/papers/SCHAUMONT_SHA3.pdf

I hope, this is the topic will help someone who got misunderstanding that X11 and SHA3 are ASIC resistant change they believe before it will repeat step Bitcoin.

Here is the reponse from Darkcoin dev

So multiple algorithms is simply deliberate inefficiency.

That is so stupid.

Basically scam people into paying out good money for deliberate inefficiency.

Oh gosh the market is too efficient, people who cannot generate electricity efficiently/cheaply are being squeezed out, gosh lets make the consumer pay through the nose to subsidize inefficient electricity generation.

What a scam.

-MarkM-

It's possible to create an ASIC for every algo but for now 1 thing is sure: there are ASIC's coming for scrypt and they will move the GPU miners away from scryptcoins into new algo's.
The same happened to SHA256D coins, like Bitcoin.

I don't expect an X11 ASIC very soon so it will be the profit algo of 2014. And that's what miners care about: profit.

I'd be more interested to see what happens when/if all the alt coins changed their algo's to be scrypt asic resistant and their companies go broke...
Leave the shit coins for the asic companies to feed on.

Miners are an insane expense best avoided entirely.

Creating garbage whose only value is to miners amounts to deliberately creating inefficient markets to scam consumers.

Mining is SUPPOSED to be unprofitable.

Only the folk who can make electricity the most efficiently and secure blockchains with that electricity most efficiently should be able to eke out a bare existence, everyone else SHOULD be squeezed out, so that mining costs the actual users of the currency as little as possible.

Scams created purely for the purpose of trying to make inefficient out-dated idiots money is a scam, might as well just be honest and put them on welfare/foodstamps instead.

Its like deliberately screwing up the streets and roads to try to make horse-and-buggy still useable so buggy-whip makers can stay profitable...

-MarkM-

what you're saying makes sense but you're basically asking miners to produce a coin that makes you rich (as a skilled trader and whatnot) while they make nothing and they should be happy about it ?
also I see no evil in giving everyone (AND I MEAN EVERYONE ASIC GPU AND CPU) a fair shot at mining, crypto is not a race it's a new way to bring the world together ... remember ? worldwide transactions without third parties involved. direct p2p payments from one individual to another ... shit like that some crazy dude satoshi whatshisface said ...

Miners who generate or buy electricity efficiently (at a good cost) and mine efficiently (using the best most efficient chips) make plenty of money.

I am not asking buggy-whip makers to whip automobiles, I am suggesting they need switch to a more efficient and appropriate technology.

General purpose computers are great for general purpose computing. For specialised financial systems specialised systems are appropriate.

It is not as if ASICs are hard to come by, and solar power gets cheaper all the time too. Buy a few little solar panels and some block eruptors and knock yourself out.

The point of bitcoin was to get away from the garbage fiat money the politicians print on demand.

Now it is like you are a printer complaining you are out of work because money is no longer being printed profitably for you so you want to issue more and more new currencies to print so you can keep your money-presses rolling.

-MarkM-

I can't figure out your agenda, copy pasting the same thing all day long on every threads concerning X11.

You may have purposely missed my answer :

Can you proof ? do you have theories back up your claim ?

Do YOU have a proof to back up your claim ? All I see is an article about SHA3 implementation what about the hardware implementation of a set of functions ...

Please answer the question, don't try to change the topic.

Facts:

- A currency needs high liquidity to be a valid currency

- High market penetration gives you high liquidity

- ASICs give you CRAP for market penetration.

- Dogecoin would have gone nowhere and had 0 market pentration as Sha256.

If an ASIC is to exist at all for a currency, it is not healthy for it to occur till at least the first halving or 50% of it being mined in order to somewhat maximize market penetration.  

The current Darkcoin algorithm at least delays ASIC until the coin has substantial value due to cost of creating them for 11 algos.

I got your point, but what is the different between x11 coins and Bitcoin if you said as above ?
Again, my point is STOP using ASIC resistant word if your coins using x11 or SHA3. it is false advertising.

It's more ASIC resistant than BTC or LTC are/were.

I likey.. the streets

 My first answer is pretty clear... You go around saying things you don't seem to understand and you ask me for proof when you provide none.

It is going to be funny, you answer what ? you claim when they are combined, it will be ASIC resistant. I ask you why ASIC resistant when they combine together ? just answer the claim that you state, I am willing to follow your theory if you have proof.

You don't understand that the hardware implementation of several functions is more difficult (and expensive) than the implementation of a single one, and that therefore a coin using a set of hashing functions is more ASIC resistant ?  ???

Don't forget power requirements of having 11 chips always turned on.

You know how when you buy a watch it isn't waterproof, it's water resistant.  It's the same as that, there is no guarantee.  Your stating what everyone knows.

So, this is my conclusion, X11 and SHA3 is not ASIC resistant, it just  because of the price for producing is expensive like SHA256 in Bitcoin and Scrypt in Litecoin in the beginning. But when companies decided to CREATE ASIC for X11 and SHA3, they will able to do if they are willing to pay huge development cost. and X11 and SHA3 coins will repeat step Bitcoin and Litecoin again. Nothing new, it is just cycle.

Maybe look up the word resistant, maybe it will help.

But why even bother to build such ASICs at all? There are more different companies making SHA256 ASICs so SHA256 is less centralised.

Creating a new algorithm just moves you back toward more centralisation because it lowers the number of providers providing specialised hardware.

-MarkM-

I couldn't AGREE more with you, still finding the answer.....WHY WHY WHY ?

X11 and SHA3 ARE ASIC resistant NOT ASIC proof

the end.  :-X

What he said ^

 ;) +1

Thank you for correcting.

Um children-

its not about the individual algo being ASIC resistant as thats basically impossible .

cPoW (of which x11 is)

is about two primary vectors:

1. A mix of algos (for complexity)

and

2. distribution time.

so no x11 is not ASIC resistant if its put into a currency with 100 years of primary distribution , but <insert here random packaged algo> with a moderate to fast distribution is.

Second definition for resistance from mw:
 re·sis·tance, effort made to stop or to fight against someone or something

Where does it say its guaranteed and in the future will remain?  I feel like we are just arguing over the definition of the word.  I think it is safe to say that LTC is no longer asic resistant unless they announce they are making an EFFORT to change.

There will eventually be ASICs for any mined algorithm which gains popularity. What this does is effectively act as a delay to help coins mature. It would take 8-12 months at least for asics to be developed for x11, maybe longer because it is dependent on economics. By that time those early adopter currencies with x11 will benefit from the asics, because ASICs benefit mature coins, and eventually the software technology would be developed for the next generation. There is a cycle to this. 

Nothing is ASIC proof. Nothing. Resistant means it would take a new R&D effort to develop asics, and that literally can take several months. At which time a coins can mature who are early adopters of the tech.

There is definitely a life cycle here, and one we must recognize, and the life cycle is not entirely bad.

I think that term "ASIC hostile" is more adequate at this conditions.

As I've said before nscrypt x11 drk they're all a bunch of gimmicks and are being hyped for what they're not. They bring nothing to the crypto world. Even if they really were asic resistant they would still be bad, maybe even worst because denying asics would be denying extra security for the network. On the other hand there's the myriad project that runs 5 independent algorythms so while still welcoming asics it gives equal chances for gpus and cpus to mine along with them creating a more diverse and thus secure network.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/meet-the-manic-miner-who-wants-to-mint-10-of-all-new-bitcoins/
5,000,000$ for 5% of the network hashrate. And BitFury owns even more. Nice "extra security for the network" and "decentralisation".

I'm starting to lose faith in bitcoin after reading about these huge ASIC farms.

what about scrypt-jane with N-factor , it needs RAM.
asic has no enough RAM , so Vertcoin and QQCoin and any other coins will go to the moon ?

Why would the people who buy coins want them to be hard to mine?

Only the miners want that, for everyone else it is simply an artificially vulnerable blockchain.

So sure the guys selling "vaults" for securing money want to sell wet paper bags as "vaults" but the fact that scammers love to sell their wet paper bags as vaults does not make wet paper bags good secure ways to store secure and transfer wealth.

-MarkM-

i agree that asic resistant or anti-asic are unhappy words, a correct word would be ASIC DETERRENT

I'm on board.  My GPUs will only use X11 for a while now.  Half power, way cooler temps, less noise. awesome this is great :D

ASIC DETERRENT, I like it.


I agree with you too :) but at least they make an effort :)

What are you talking about ?

The whole point of ASIC resistant is to fight the first wave of ASIC SCRYPT miners and to make it difficult and expensive for the ASIC manufacturers to replace all GPU mining. No one is claiming ASIC proof. Anything is possible with enough money and effort. ASIC resistant is trying to make it impractical and unprofitable.

Dear, they are called ASIC resistant not proof.  It would be a total pita to make an ASIC for X-11, though it can and will be done when the market pressures are high enough.  What Evan was attempting to do was to give Darkcoin a few years, if possible, of ASIC free mining.  Only time will tell if he gets that many years.

Oops, I just realized you quoted Evan.  I guess I'm not quite understanding your point.  But ok, all's well :)

+1 Absolutely....obviously the future...half the power consumption alone is a win.

The only people against alt-algos are holding LTC,DOGE, etc, and hoping asics will cause them to blow them up in value.

Everyone's got an agenda these days.  :D

X11 just seems like a bloaware algorithm to me.

Thanks to my doubts, or I will be concealed for a long time.

 ;D

Take a look at this topic : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549592.0

So someone can also make asics for sha3, x11.

Yesssss !!!, and they can make it right now, if they want.

But there is no point because we already have a primary hashing algorithm (SHA256) and a backup in case it turns out there is some fatal flaw in SHA256 (scrypt).

Is another backup really needed before any fatal flaw has been found in either of those algorithms?

Kids will go and play with their toy mining machines spamming the world with endless variations of toy coins, meanwhile serious finance can be done using serious blackchains that have serious amounts of hashing power securing them, and maybe even also using no proof of work required systems if any of those turn out to actually be secure.


I suppose though that if scrypt really is inefficient compared to something else (maybe SHA3 or somesuch) making ASICs for a more efficient algorithm to use as a backup algorithm might make sense.

-MarkM-

I agree with you.

take a look at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549592.0
Someone are still thinking X11 is ASIC resistant.

Ye, no algo is 100% resistant to ASIC. SHA3 especially is very easy to make an ASIC for. The whole point of X11 is to have an algo that uses many different algos on random rotation to make ASICs for it a pain to make (since you'd need to have circuits for 11 different algos, each taking space).

No, absolutely no.
Mining should be profitable, both because it secures the coin, AND because it allows for a incredible revolution: it allows people to buy high end gaming rigs and pay back the investment in a few months, something that will be VERY important to ensure the penetration of VR in the next year, with Oculus Rift.

Yes, they are. And not only they are difficult to get ahold of, but the whole ASIC manifacturing market is a huge SCAM:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2182nb/kncminers_ceo_sam_cole_dumping_bitcoins_worth/

100% resistant is an oxymoron. Resist means to hinder not to stop.

lol to everyone rooting for the term "resistant" and saying asic resistant coin are the choice now.


seems like you got sold the FUD. So much that you now preach it. hahaha


looking at you verticoners , hiros , darkers , and the rest.


Darkcoin , i see it trading strong in future because of it being anonymous and not because of ASIC . Their price is much higher. it has not crashed yet. it will. Soon as the volume of miners is much higher then buyers. aka soon its going to run out of steam and new people will stop being interest. it will have no new people interested. Just wait until 3-4 more copy-pasta coins emerge that offer the same. People will move around https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=529570.msg5993851#msg5993851

Vertcoin so far has preached the "non asic" angle since day one. Not even being the first n-scrypt coin. vertcoin i see it being still alive in near future because of the user base , just like doge. But the price is too hyped. Even now, that it crashed its too high for it.

hero? well i dont even know. seems like a darkcoin copy to me. that says it all.



in my opinion i see darkcoin become more successful then vert. but they both need to crash much more before they normalize to their true value

Currently. But I think there is a chance of using true randomness within an algo to make ASICs impossible to make. It just hasn't been done yet.

Do you know about Darkcoin ?

1. Anonymous : BS, it is just bitcoin + coinjoin
2. ASIC resistant : BS, X11 are not ASIC resistant at all, even the Darkcoin dev said so
3. No premine : BS, Actually is instamine  13.8%. take a look at below

Yes, both DRK and Hiro have a huge isntamine issue:
http://www.reddit.com/r/DRKCoin/comments/21k7jt/to_all_the_windows_miners_we_will_not_reach_the/

IloveAnonCoin is very objective when it comes to Darkcoin.  ::) He must support an other coin hmmm

Don't you see my name ?

You don't say ?  :o

your point. just like mine is that dark coin its too pricy right now and it is not even close to what it should be.

you're also right. i should have meant a bit closer to being more anonymous then other coins.

but other then that.. we kinda agree.

maybe my post is not as clear as it is in my mind

I can see in principle why some support ASICs because if you want to make serious money, then you should heavily invest in the hardware to do so, if you work in any kind of graphic, 3d or motion video industry you know investing in new equipment is a cost of doing business...

That being said though, the companies that make these ASICs are con artists. I guarantee you it is costing them very little to manufacture these chips and they are probably all sitting on palette jacks right now by the thousands yet they bullshit you with their shady "preorders" and telling you you won't receive them for months down the road. Worst, many want to be paid in Bitcoin, so you are potentially selling them 100k worth of future money for 10k today. How anyone who can whine about "scamcoins" yet support these hucksters is beyond me.

Ask yourself when have you ever preordered a videocard 6-12 months in advance? You don't because you know by then it will be outdated. Personally I wish a respectable company like AMD or Nvidia would get in the game themselves and undercut these guys.

Aw Hell, I'll put my two cents worth into the mix.

ANY predefined algorithm can be performed by an ASIC.

As long as the algorithm is known ahead of time, it can be performed by an ASIC.  Some ASICs get around that rule by embedding specialized CPUs to adapt to minor changes in the logic while running, but they sacrifice speed in doing so.

I do many forms of engineering and FPGA programming is one of them.  (For those who care FPGA stands for Field Programmable Gate Array.  Clear as mud, right?)  FPGAs are "firmware" versions of integrated circuits.  They are, in a manner of speaking, reprogrammable ASICs.  An FPGA can be reprogrammed to become most any digital circuit.  One of the costs for this flexibility is speed.  Very high-end FPGAs can come within 97% of the speed of an ASIC, but they are significantly more expensive at the high speed and large logic-quantity ranges.  So, FPGAs are usually just used to prototype ASICs.  Once the "firmware" version of the code is perfected on FPGAs, it is converted into photo masks for mass producing ASICs, analogous to a photocopier

A miner hardware vendor that is an exception to this is KnC Miner.  They produce miners that are sold with the FPGAs in them rather than ASICs, for the most part.  (They may now have some products with just ASICs in them or FPGAs and ASICs.)  That is how they have gained speed to market, by skipping the ASIC chip production process.  However, their pricing reflects the additional cost of using high-end FPGAs in their products.

To say an algorithm is ASIC resistant is just a pipe dream.  There are only two things I can see that would make a cryptocurrency algorithm "ASIC resistant."

1) If the market for the coin is insignificant.  Creating ASICs is a very time and capital consuming venture.  (This is the crux of most of the constantly slipping ship dates for preordered miner hardware.  Some aspect of the ASIC did not come out as predicted and adjustments must be made to the product design to accommodate those variances.)   ASICs specialize in executing specific algorithms VERY fast.  HOWEVER, the logic is cast in stone and metal, pretty literally.  Once they are designed and set up for production, they can be churned out by the millions relatively cheaply.  The only way to justify the creation of an ASIC is if there is sufficient market to consume those millions of chips to pay back the development costs... and then make a profit.  Insufficient market, (as in the number of interested miner purchasers) no ASIC will be created.  Period.  Basic business economics.

The exception to this would be coins that, though different in some way, still use existing algorithms.  Ie. A SHA256D ASIC can be used to mine any SHA256D based coin.  The same is true for Scrypt ASICs.  Even "Bitcoin-sCrypt" will subverted by this rule eventually.  If there is enough money to be made, someone will figure out a way to get an advantage and turn a buck... er... coin.

2) If, as part of the design of the coin, the algorithm for the coin changes significantly and randomly during the life-cycle of the coin, it would be resistant to specialized hardware because the algorithms would not be fully known ahead of time.  IMHO, this "shell game" method of implementing the logic would not work well in practice, but would lend itself to CPUs and GPUs because they can have their code changed "on the fly."

Those are the only two scenarios I see that would make a coin algorithm truly "ASIC resistant."

This thread needs a bump.


It is impossible for a computer to create a truly random event.


QFT, afa #2 Since it is impossible to create a random number on a computer and the coin is always open sauced, How could that be accomplished?

I have thought of another method but I'm not going to expose it in an open forum until the Idea has been fleshed out.

Yacoin introduced SHA3 to cryptocoin world and is currently at Nf15. Rather than being ASIC resistant, I would say Yacoin is ASIC PROOF. It would require completely new technologies and concepts to change that.

It does look like N-Factor is a great weapon against ASIC's but isn't Yacoin Gpu proof now as well (not saying that's a bad thing)?

GPU mining YAC has always been a bit of an art for sure, but even at current N it is still possible. Check the ongoing dev thread for some of the latest settings for GPU.

Compute-bound PoWs are ASIC-friendly by nature.

Memory-bound PoWs that need more memory than fits on a single chip
would lead to ASICs that need to connect to memory modules;
whose throughput is limited by the memory interface and latency.
Such a setup would have limited performance & power advantage over
commodity hardware.