Unfortunately, I have to agree. Look at what CryptoAve has done for DigitalCoin. Nothing, other than distracting the Dev(s) from attending to what's important (i.e. the coin itself). https://www.cryptoave.com/

Since CryptoAve inception, DGC has lost over 80% of its value . . . and if we take into account the 3 months or so spent on trying to get it up and running before they actually eventually succeeded, we'd have to say that DGC has lost over 95% of its value from its Nov.-Dec. 2013 highs.

Personally, my 2 cents say that an algo change is paramount ATM. Everything else can wait, we've got years before it's even going to be necessary to even think about PoS, for example, but the ASIC threat has got to be dealt with ASAP, and with a scrypt coin, the only option available is a hardfork algo change. There's no other option. And time is of the essence.

I missed this before . . . sorry.

You're not sure what I'm "trying to say"? It's pretty clear if you stay with what I said and don't unnecessarily clutter the subject. Why would you want to unduly complicate and confuse by introducing irrelevant comments like "more coins per day will magically be produced" or "difficulty adjustment ensures a constant supply of coins no matter what the network hashrate is"? What do either have to do with what I was saying?

If you want to understand, you need to limit your comprehension efforts to what was said, and that was:

EXTREMELY LOWER ENERGY RELATED MINING COSTS = LOWER PRICES (unless everyone is holding long term   )

That's it in a nutshell. Don't convolute the issue. Forget about hashrates and difficulty. Use the scientific method and change only one independent variable at a time = try calculating profitability using 1/10 to 1/20th the former cost of electricity. Do that before trying to get cute.

Start calculating from that base, and then, later, you can continue on towards more 'complicated' calculations like: how low could price go before the ASICs are no longer profitable? I'll give you a very direct hint on that one: at today's price, diff, hashrate, etc., (holding all other variables constant - all other things being equal, as they say in layman's terms), DOGE could fall to .00000005 - 0.00000010 and the ASICs would still be profitable on a variable cost only basis (ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL), and you can bet they'll be mining 'till they drop' as they do everything they can to eke out whatever return they can before turning into very costly paperweights.

BTW, now you'd be prepared to change other variables, like, for example, hashrate (which would directly effect dependent variables, which in this case would be difficulty, which, in turn, keeps production relatively constant as you assert, correct?) Double the hashrate, and now you've got a lower ASIC profitability range of 10 to 20 satoshi, quadruple the hashrate and that lower range turns into 20-40, etc., etc. As I said in the post that you chose to unnecessarily complicate, difficulty would rise proportionately with hashrate . . .

Now, here's what's complicated (apart from being able to close your eyes and visualize a rotating cube): normally, price would rise with rising hashrate, rising difficulty and decreasing production (caused by another independent variable which is reward 'halving'). Why is that not happening?

That is where I left you in the post that you had difficulty understanding. Why is that dynamic turned upside down? Is it that the answer to that question is not suitable to your preconceived notions? Is it that the answer is not in line with your agenda? Is this the complication that upsets your applecart? Might this be what you are not sure about and what drives you to turn a relatively simple equation into a tortuous and obtuse labyrinth?

P.S. Kind of glad that I missed your original response so that I could bring this very simple but very undesired reality back front and center, since, by the look of things, a lot of people are still scratching their heads.

+1 on both those comments

I would only add that it's a doge eat doge world, and there also comes a time - after having leveraged the fantastic PR your helping hand got you - when it's time be less of a nice guy and to actually start doing battle with the competition. With the advent of scrypt ASIC, this "chess game" is going to wind down very quickly for the scrypt coins, and if a widely distributed user base and secure network is the goal, the best and most effective option that I know of that would be a decent starting point towards getting there (for now anyway) would be Groestl. And there's certainly no time for helping others . . . not until DGB has staked its claim anyway.

As you said, those "that bought early" have a decent chance - 6 to 10 months average - and with that select group, my statement COULD turn out to be false.

However, I'm referring to "the vast majority", and that obviously includes all those buying now and in the future. ASIC may be "profitable" today on a current data, simpleton, straight line projection analysis, but, unfortunately for those buying now and in the future, the difficulty to mine will increase exponentially in line with the introduction of mass use of ASIC. Forget it. It'll be all over by September - ASIC won't even be profitable on a simple variable cost only basis by then - much less factoring in a return on your hardware investment!

Spend some time doing the math. You might save a lot of time and money. The vast majority of ASIC miners will never, read my lips, NEVER make ROI.

The only people who will make money on this "scam" are the ASIC manufacturers.
. . . ahem, charging in BTC, and then (for obvious reasons since the raw materials, fixed and variable production costs, etc., etc., are paid in USD) selling that BTC for USD . . .


You're better off simply buying BTC, and forgetting about trying to mine altogether.

 . . . unless you're mining and buying one of the altcoins of the future that hold true to the crypto ethic . . .

Could you enlighten us as to just how you think Litecoin might be an exception, being a scrypt coin itself? What objective data might you see to argue that exception?

Could you please elaborate and further explain what you are saying here? I know you're not a native speaker, but, like so many others have politely asked, could you work on a clearer, perhaps even more detailed and precise, explanation? Honestly, I didn't clearly understand anything of the above comment other than "world first coin". I'm thinking that maybe if you express yourself in your native language it might be better (or, ideally, both your mother tongue and English), and I mean that seriously since a google translation might actually be a big help.

Please bear with us as we bear with you.

I will quote you again when the "I told you so" day arrives.   

Keep on accumulating.

DGB will have a 1000% increase OVERNIGHT one of these days.

Worse yet! (and, yes, understood, that makes sense, but, as I said, that's worse yet, and further undermines your argument).


To that I reply what may sound like an idiotic ever heard of ASIC? Really, flound, I can't believe I'm hearing this from one of the most important pool operators around. ASIC cuts scrypt power costs by what? Over 900%? Said another way, ASIC mining variable costs are 1/10 that of GPU mining? (That's just to throw out low-ball figures - the high end is around 1/20th the cost, so get ready.) "Ever heard of difficulty?" Are you serious? At a 1/10 cost to mine, difficulty could rise 10 fold and the ASICs would still be profitable!!!! Where do you think the widely distributed user base and secure network will be by then? 99% of scrypt coins are currently NOT PROFITABLE using GPU, *ALREADY*, and price isn't rising. Why do you think that is happening? You think those coins will be able to recover after the ASIC demolition? You're dreaming pal. As soon as they go back to profitable for the ASIC, those same ASICs will be back like zombies. The position you are arguing is untenable, and your argument (or lack of as it were) only more clearly reveals that fact. As I said, I can't believe I'm hearing this from you. I can only guess that you must have a very strong predisposition that needs to be reinforced at whatever cost. In any event, let's promise to get together and talk about this again once diff has risen by 1000% (you and the handful of ASICs still mining on Multipool   ).

SIZE BID on craptsy at .00054 - 7337 left from an original order of 7555 -

I'm not sure I understand your logic there. Liquidating = selling. Liquidating to sell? I've never seen or heard anyone say that before. Could you be suggesting the liquidation of alts to sell BTC? That just doesn't make sense either. One is not in any way related to the other.

On the other hand, liquidating alts to *buy* BTC is another matter altogether.

I agree with the original post. ASICs will only accentuate that trend as it is the most cost effective way of entering into or further building a BTC position. The ASICs will destroy any ASIC compatible altcoin as they mine those coins into oblivion by immediately "liquidating" their altcoin mining proceeds in order to buy BTC.

It's as simple as supply and demand. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=557086.0

A couple of questions:

• is your pool PROP?
• does your pool require a minimum hashrate in order to receive payouts?
• similar to a P2P, does your pool setup progressively reward increasing hashrates?

A couple of potential issues:

• I've been testing and, by my calculations, on one machine I should be getting 1/8 total coins mined (assuming that 1/8 hashrate directly correlates to a 1/8 payout), and I've only seen just over 0.5 coins in a period where your Tab Stats show 8 confirmed coins (just over half the expected payout, with 100% reported efficiency and almost zero rejects on my end) - am I calculating wrong?
• much to my chagrin, another miner with a lesser hashrate hasn't received anything . . . something obviously wrong with that, right?
• is it normal to see oscillating shares in the Worker Stats, with values that actually decrease from time to time?

Best regards and looking forward to hearing back from you.

"Issue" Resolved

I said in my original post that the only things I changed in my startup script were from the http address to either stratum+tcp://dmdpool.digsys.bg:3333 or stratum+tcp://groestlcoin.biz:3334 and the username. (username only on groestlcoin.biz, of course)

Another "duh" moment: I also needed to change the kernel to diamond.  

@danbi, thanks for the reply. The --difficulty-multiplier 0.0039062500 parameter is part of my standard config (if I remember correctly, it's not possible to solo mine without that parameter, and it's used for Groestlcoin mining as well).

Will do some more testing and more thorough documentation when time allows before PMing you (I'm very busy for the rest of the day . . . maybe later tonight).

In the meantime, perhaps some of your other stratum miners could post config and/or bat file configurations?

Can anyone come up with anything similar from other sources?


BTW:

What's the status with getting DMD listed on MintPal?

Yeah, we all know that.

The questions are:

• 1) Has Cryptsy made any effort to get back to kyma, and, if so, what have they said?
• 2) What can we do to pressure Cryptsy and get them to stop dragging their feet and get the coins resent?