OK, you're right. From what I've read in this thread, the android miner has had a larger percentage increase, so I guess that answers it. Thanks for your reply.

I'm not sure why you feel he needs a basic reminder of how crypto works. He's saying that his profits are down, and he suspects its because of the difficulty. There's nothing incorrect about his statement. I've made the same observation many times.

My question remains, with rising difficulty and more GPU miners, how will UPX equalize hash rates for android and IoT devices? I know android is much faster now. So is GPU reportedly. What exactly are we gaining here?

I wish when the brand changes, they would start a self-moderated thread. A lot of coins do that because of this kind of issue.

I wondered how the new hash rate would affect difficulty. It sounds the new algo is more efficient and yields higher hash rates. But with the same block time, maybe it has to increase difficulty?

It's on the first post of this thread.

That's really good news! Seems like the devs are on top of things.

I must have missed that information. If the new algo punishes GPUs by making their hash the same as a CPU, that will definitely help. GPU miners would want to move on to a coin that they can use their hashpower on.

Love you too.
I guess you're right, if he has an AMD GPU, the Fruityminer won't work. I am getting nervous, as we are getting close to the update and it still seems like all the miner software isn't here yet.

Yes, GPU mining is efficient. What's good for GPUs is always bad for CPUs. And what's good for CPUs is probably bad for IoT. We can note that GPU's hashpower is good for the network, but this project is about IoT, and nobody has been able to explain to me how we're going to transtion from GPUs putting out multiple kh/s to IoT devices that are going to trickle in hashpower. I don't see how to make the transition.

You say UPX primary platform is CPU. Then why dos the official site hand out GPU miners. In my experience it's foolish to try and use CPU (or even something less powerful) to compete against GPUs. And I don't see how just letting it unfold naturally is going to allow IoT to work.  Sure, not everyone has GPUs or serve-grade CPUs, but if enough do, it can really crowd out the individual CPU miners.

Not trying to be a pain, it's just almost every CPU coin I've seen has run into serious trouble by letting GPUs in. It's getting really difficult to find a CPU-only coin that can succeed.

Bro, I don't think you're listening. He's saying the Fruityminer update hasn't been released yet. Whatever his CPU/GPU is doesn't matter. The issue is the miner isn't here, and needs to be.

You don't see eth losing 99.9% of its value?

Yes, I think you're saying something reasonable. That's how I imagine it. The one issue I have is, in the years it takes to accomplish the IoT network, the GPU miners (myself included) will have built up some big bags of UPX. So what's the problem? Well, if the project punishes GPU miners a bit, then those GPU miners will have to move onto other coins. Most likely they will start dumping their UPX, and because of the large bags they have, it will keep UPX price down for years with all the selling pressure. Maybe investors come in to buy up the coin, but in terms of strengthening the network, it's going to be hard to go from GPU hashpower down to IoT/phone  hashpower. I only mention this because I've seen a number of CPU coins that get stomped once the GPU miners come in.

Now wouldn't it be cool if we could get 100Mh/s on android.

And yeah, fruityminer hasn't released the update yet. Maybe if they don't our discussion about GPU will be over.

Well if we let GPUs run wild, that might be fine for hashrate, but it seems those will always crowd out the IoT devices. Let's say I have 5 IoT devices in my home. These devices aren't meant to shove data in and out at full bandwidth constantly--they are limited in processing power. They won't keep up in any hash competition unless the algo prefers them over GPUs.

Lets' look at this. Right now, I have an android mining 150Mh/s. I assume any IoT device will have less hashpower than a phone. My crummy 2 GPU system is getting 4000Mh/s on uplexa. That's 3850 more hashes every second. How is a phone or IoT device going to compete with that?

It won't. My concern is that by allowing GPUs a strong presence in mining UPX, we're setting up the failure of the IoT mining, which is the core of the project, right?

Maybe I'm wrong on that. But if we want useful android mining and IoT mining, there needs to be some competitive edge for those devices over GPUs. I strongly feel that to ignore this will cost the project dearly down the road. Hopefully I am wrong.

So it runs faster on GPU. What makes you say the new algo will be better for CPU? If anything, it will be worse for CPU if hashing rates for GPUs is increased as much as you say.

The issue with what you're saying will be, with a huge head start by GPU miners, later UPX development to enable IoT devices will be too late. You can't make an IoT device hash more than it will, and it will never be more than a tiny bit compared to GPU. So where were headed is the GPU miners will have huge stashes built up. Later, when IoT devices start to mine, the hash rates will be poor enough they'll never catch the head start GPU had. It's like trying to mine with an android miner--you just can't get enough hashing to make it profitable compared to a decent CPU, and a decent CPU can't touch a decent GPU (unless there's effort to equalize the hashing).

The rational thing would be to punish GPU miners immediately, before their mining destroys the chance of IoT mining getting off the ground. But until then, I encourage all GPU miners that like the project to mine the heck out it and build up your stash while you can. I think GPU miners are the biggest threat to this coin, and yes I'm one of them.

I will admit to some doubts and questions about the project. But the more I read redrum's posts, the more confident I'm becoming in the coin. When your critics say one thing over and over and over, you know you're doing something right.

It does mean GPUs will need to get less. If you look at the native hashing power of an IoT device compared to a GPU, it's no contest by a huge margin. I'm having trouble seeing how UPX could succeed in the IoT arena WITHOUT punishing the GPU miners somehow. It's just necessary if you want really distributed hash power among low-powered devices.

Update?

So you're saying that's the Pay part of BiblePay?

You hit the nail on the head with "its primary goal is something completely unrelated to the name." If the project was primarily to take rewards and distribute Bibles with them, then BiblePay would be a decent name. But there's nothing about Biblepay that makes me think of orphans. I'd guess that the original hope was (as is for most crypto) that there would be more adoption. If so, the name makes more sense.

"CharityChain" is actually a pretty good name. I was trying to think of something more Christian-sounding, but I like CharityCoin because it doesn't put religion first. I strongly feel the world needs help wherever it can get it--and not just from a platform for religious giving. It would be kind of cool--having charity as the name's focus, and keeping the Jesus stuff there, but not at the forefront.

As poor as I am at predicting things with BBP, I'm fairly certain Rob isn't up for a name change, with all the investment in the current name and logo. Changing branding is a bunch of work, and better done earlier than later. Still it's an interesting discussion about how the name reflects the coin's purpose. It would probably take the project being abandoned or a hard fork to make it an option. We'll see.

Edit: Saw you posted this on the main thread. I'll keep my reply here.