I said this: Now anybody that wants to argue that there can be an ASIC-Proof algorithm that a general purpose processor such as an i7 can compute just needs to put on an idiot hat and go sit in the corner. Yes, I know that's rude as hell but, c'mon.
And you said this: Strongly disagree. It is, at least in principle, possible to make an algorithm that an intel core i7 is the ideal chip for (that is, an intel core i7 IS the asic for this algorithm). You'd have to write the algorithm specifically for that task, but it is possible.
Do you see the disconnect, where you sort of confirm what I just said, but seem to be arguing against it? |
|
|
|
Based on the rapidly balooning hashrate for litecoin, and the facts that
1. 95% of GPU miners switched to litecoin weeks if not months ago (as it has _LONG_ been more profitable than BTC for GPU miners)
2. Only a complete idiot would continue buying GPUs to mine anything
it's possible that someone has developed an FPGA or ASIC for mining scrypt coins, but is adding hashrate in such a way as to disguise this fact. It doesn't make $/kWh to buy GPU miners for scrypt coins anymore.
I believe that there are FPGAs mining Litecoin right now, and have been for some time. It's pretty silly to think there aren't, IMO. Not ASICs. There isn't enough money in all of altcoins to cause secret ASIC development - the costs are so extreme that the only hope for viability would be a sales plan. Remember it isn't the miners that get rich in the gold rush. |
|
|
|
It appears the OP assumes implementing scrypt in hardware is identical in difficulty and development effort to implementing SHA256 in hardware, and that the benefits in hash rate would be similar to SHA256 on GPU's vs. an ASIC...
Not at all. Neither condition is necessary for the point I'm making (well trying to make). See... In reality, SHA256 is almost a prime example of an embarrassingly simple problem (Google "embarrassingly simple" if you're not familiar with what that term means in the context of parallel processing), and you can pipeline the whole SHA256 calculation and crank out a hash per clock cycle per core. It's almost retardedly simple to develop an SHA256 ASIC, there's even multiple Verilog implementations for FPGA's that you can start with to generate the netlist for the SHA256 cores (at which point the development process diverges from that of FPGA's of course). That's why we've seen several SHA256 ASICs arrive on the market that were designed by novices or people with negligible or no prior VLSI experience. When it comes to development cost, there's also a massive spread. You can go and pick yourself up an SHA256 core design, for free, that performs fairly well and is fully pipelined, from multiple sources. For scrypt, you have to go it alone and develop it from scratch, and you end up with an almost infinitely more complex netlist than an SHA256 core (in fact, an scrypt core will tend to contain two SHA256 cores) that is significantly harder to place and route on the die, and much harder to verify gate-level simulations prior to taping out the masks. The challenge in making an SHA256 ASIC pretty much amounts to placing and routing a fairly simple netlist against the foundry's provided logic cell library, and then just copy'n'pasting the core all over the available die area. The challenge with scrypt is monumental in comparison. So, what are we talking here. Let's say $100,000 buys me an extra man-year of engineering time. Let's say it takes 2 man-years, and $200,000 extra. Preposterous, do you disagree? Nonetheless. What's that mean to the overall cost of bringing an ASIC miner all the way to retail from scratch? 5% increase? 3% increase? I'm not going to say it's trivial. It's no show stopper. Implementing scrypt in hardware is not what I'd call "embarrassingly simple" in comparison. A Radeon 69xx (or maybe a 79xx depending how you value power efficiency) die is fairly close to being a pretty good hardware implementation for scrypt. Yeah, you can probably do slightly better in a few areas (but worse in others, particularly if you're stuck interfacing to off-chip GDDR5, as AMD kinda has the edge over anything an amateur-developed ASIC is going to have for a memory controller core(s)). Oh my god, this is entirely new to me. And absolutely hilarious. If I recall correctly LiteCoin was actually developed for "GPU Resistance". The irony here is "thick as butta". On topic, you keep talking about amateurs. That was what happened with the original, simple implementation of a blockchain, because "amateurs" were the only ones who cared and it was, as you state, embarrassingly simple. I know I posted some of this after you but, with the example of BitCoin right in front of them, if a scrypt coin breaks $xx USD (mystery threshold at this time) and holds it for a few months, or shows signs of climbing, the situation is going to be quite different. It won't be about how many years it takes a man, it will be about how many man-years it takes.
... Or else you do on-die SRAM and pick a good spot along the more obvious TMTO curve (lookup gap) and live with burning tons of die area on SRAM. But it's not going to result in something with an epic performance gap compared to GPU's, as happened with SHA256 for BTC.
In my opinion, OP's points would be valid if developing an scrypt ASIC were of equal difficulty and complexity to slapping an array of open-source SHA256 cores through an open-source ASIC router and layout tool and sending off the placed and routed design to the foundry (oversimplification, but not by much). So I would say yes, the algorithm does actually matter. You can spin an SHA256 ASIC design for significantly less than $1M if you do the design work yourself. You can even screw up the design royally several times and re-run new masks through MOSIS (an ASIC prototype aggregation service) multiple times and still be under that amount.
The performance gap doesn't have to be epic, it just has to be significant, and "Burning tons of die area on SRAM" may be exactly what would happen. I'll get back to this in a second. Also a reference back to my comment about your focus on amateurs. And to bring it further into the clear, I suspect the majority of the difference in cost between producing a scrypt ASIC Miner and a SHA ASIC Miner is going to be in the supporting miner hardware, which is going to require a lot more activity to occur off-chip than bitcoin does.
I'm going to make a statement here that is absolutely outside of my realm of knowledge. It's actually possible that the design, production and fab of a scrypt asic would end up being cheaper than the same process for a SHA ASIC due to this very fact.
Partially correct on the first point above, and very wrong on the last point. I'm not sure how you got from "scrypt will require more complicated off-chip support components" to "an scrypt ASIC would end up being cheaper" than an SHA256 ASIC. The die area needed to implement an scrypt core (that actually performs with any sort of noteworthy hash rate) is massively larger than for a simple pipelined SHA256(SHA256()) core, regardless of whether there is off-die memory. And interfacing to external high-speed I/O is one of the hardest things you can deal with in an ASIC design, especially if we're talking about interfacing to something like a very wide bank of GDDR5 at anything close to the clock rates that the Radeon GPU's operate at. It is, perhaps, very foolish to suggest that addressing an extremely difficult external I/O problem will drive down the cost of developing and fabricating an ASIC, compared with a simple SHA256 core that barely needs to talk to anything (and when it does, can do so over even a dirt simple open-collector bus that just communicates a winning nonce when one is found). Maybe people just aren't understanding how dirt simple a hardware implementation of SHA256 really is.. Not exactly ground-breaking technology that demands a cutting-edge process node here. Back to burning up that die space. What if (yes I'm speculating again, and asking for your input) some basic research or, more likely early prototyping/simulation, were to show that you could do it better by burning the whole damn thing on a single die. Stick with me here. The cost of the die will increase immensely. But your ASIC miner could then consist of a power supply, an I/O interface comparable to a SHA256 asic, if not simpler, and a water (more likely oil) cooler. An interesting thought. If you care to analyze it I'm interested in what you have to say. If you eliminate so many other factors in the design/development/manufacturing process, it might be worth the increased cost per die. Pile on reliability, life span in the field, and a few other factors. Would you be willing to dismiss this out of hand? If so, I'd like to know what your experience and/or credentials are before I decide how seriously to take your dismissal. It takes well under the $8M figure mentioned by the OP to call up AMD and license the Radeon 6950 or 7950 reference design, and produce boards with multiple GPU's on them.
This might be the show stopper. In light of my original point, I want to mention that just because something "isn't the cheapest way" doesn't make it "not economically viable". And it keeping with what I posted after you - the decision to actually create a Scrypt ASIC may be an entirely emotional one, with factors that were nonexistent "when bitcoin did it". Back to our imaginary billionaire  It depends on what kind of guy he is. If he wakes up and says "I want to pwn crypto" and goes about it as efficiently as possible, he's likely to speak to AMD. If he wakes up and says "I want to be the guy that brought out the scrypt ASIC", all other factors go out the window. Profit is profit, and if the numbers are big enough, a 1% improvement in over all efficiency (calculated only by coins/joule) may make it "economically viable". I'm going to make a statement here that is absolutely outside of my realm of knowledge.
There are probably people on this forum who know the real answer to that, I don't.
You're correct on both of these items though.  Good to know I was right about something. You covered some of the same ground in both posts, if you think me shifting quoted blocks to address similar points changed your meaning, let me know. I'm also glad no one has showed up to tell me about "an ASIC-proof algorithm". |
|
|
|
And to bring it further into the clear, I suspect the majority of the difference in cost between producing a scrypt ASIC Miner and a SHA ASIC Miner is going to be in the supporting miner hardware, which is going to require a lot more activity to occur off-chip than bitcoin does.
I'm going to make a statement here that is absolutely outside of my realm of knowledge. It's actually possible that the design, production and fab of a scrypt asic would end up being cheaper than the same process for a SHA ASIC due to this very fact.
Partially correct on the first point above, and very wrong on the last point. I'm not sure how you got from "scrypt will require more complicated off-chip support components" to "an scrypt ASIC would end up being cheaper" than an SHA256 ASIC. The die area needed to implement an scrypt core is massively larger than for a simple pipelined SHA256(SHA256()) core, regardless of whether there is off-die memory. And interfacing to external high-speed I/O is one of the hardest things you can deal with in an ASIC design, especially if we're talking about interfacing to something like a very wide bank of GDDR5 at anything close to the clock rates that the Radeon GPU's operate at. It is, perhaps, very foolish to suggest that addressing an extremely difficult external I/O problem will drive down the cost of developing and fabricating an ASIC, compared with a simple SHA256 core that barely needs to talk to anything (and when it does, can do so over even a dirt simple open-collector bus that just communicates a winning nonce when one is found). When it comes to development cost, there's also a massive spread. You can go and pick yourself up an SHA256 core design, for free, that performs fairly well and is fully pipelined, from multiple sources. For scrypt, you have to go it alone and develop it from scratch, and you end up with an almost infinitely more complex netlist than an SHA256 core (in fact, an scrypt core will tend to contain two SHA256 cores) that is significantly harder to place and route on the die, and much harder to verify gate-level simulations prior to taping out the masks. The challenge in making an SHA256 ASIC pretty much amounts to placing and routing a fairly simple netlist against the foundry's provided logic cell library, and then just copy'n'pasting the core all over the available die area. The challenge with scrypt is monumental in comparison. Maybe people just aren't understanding how dirt simple a hardware implementation of SHA256 really is.. Not exactly ground-breaking technology that demands a cutting-edge process node here. I'm going to make a statement here that is absolutely outside of my realm of knowledge.
There are probably people on this forum who know the real answer to that, I don't.
You're correct on both of these items though. I've been at dinner and I'm taking in your posts. Thank you for stopping in, as I do appreciate actually being educated a little. I want to point this out, while I'm still taking in some of the more technical parts of your posts:
Partially correct on the first point above, and very wrong on the last point. I'm not sure how you got from "scrypt will require more complicated off-chip support components" to "an scrypt ASIC would end up being cheaper" than an SHA256 ASIC.
You've substituted the word "would" where I used the word "could" - in context (and with my admission of ignorance) it's an important change in meaning. If I hadn't gone ahead and speculated I don't think I would have gotten such a thorough answer. For now I'll take your knowledgability at face value and I'm off to re-read your posts before I say anything else. I'm going to go read them a couple more times and see if I have anything to say |
|
|
|
So your ASIC Resistance notion boils down to "economically unviable", and I agree that is a good notion.
I just don't get your distinction between it not being an algorithmic property yet a context property of the system built on that algorithm when in fact these limitations in the ultimately static context arise out of the algorithmic properties in the first place. Unless of course you can provide numbers.
The algorithmic properties will have a very minor impact on the timing of achieving "economic viability". It's technically nothing at all to do with "the ability to produce an ASIC" for the POW algorithm. And to bring it further into the clear, I suspect the majority of the difference in cost between producing a scrypt ASIC Miner and a SHA ASIC Miner is going to be in the supporting miner hardware, which is going to require a lot more activity to occur off-chip than bitcoin does. I'm going to make a statement here that is absolutely outside of my realm of knowledge. It's actually possible that the design, production and fab of a scrypt asic would end up being cheaper than the same process for a SHA ASIC due to this very fact. There are probably people on this forum who know the real answer to that, I don't. Note very carefully the distinction between the ASIC itself, and the ASIC miner. What sort of numbers do you mean? We're in practically uncharted waters here (one data point does not make much of a chart). I don't have any. That's actually my criticism, you don't seem to have any data. Last time I checked people with sophisticated understanding of ASIC design and sCrypt internals determined it is not economically viable, and likely won't be for decades to come, or to put it this way: it seems the algorithmic properties do have a very major impact on the timing of achieving "economic viability". All right, stating in all caps that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with it may be a bit of hyperbole. However, the folks you're talking about (just assuming that they are as credentialed as you indicate) don't have any data either. Or at least, they have only the one data point that I have, which is the point at which someone felt that BitCoin ASICs were economically viable. Bitcoin had nothing to blaze a trail, there was no reason for anyone to buy in or believe it would get to where it is. I don't know what the market cap was when the various people and teams now producing bitcoin ASIC miners decided to move ahead on their projects. I know that they've only recently begun to ship. Litecoin (no haterade here sorry just the best example of a scrypt coin atm) has had bitcoin to blaze a trail. People are sorry that they missed out on the takeoff of BTC are going to be more eager to speculate, and thus more welcoming to the risk/reward ratio. Put that burning desire together with moore's law and current research into various computing technologies. I say we have an unpredictable situation here. A billionaire might wake up tomorrow and say "fuck it let's have a scrypt ASIC". The odds of that having happened when Bitcoin were $2 apiece were pretty small. The odds of it happening to scrypt because someone is sorry they missed out on the "bitcoin rush" are much, much better. Economic viability is a social factor. Even though the technicalities certainly do have an impact on those decisions. Or to put it another way, "ASIC-resistance" is a property of the coin and it's economy. While the POW algorithm is a admittedly a factor, it's unlikely that it's going to be the actual deciding factor. The actual deciding factor is going to be "fear of not being first". That's all IMO, and so is anyone else's estimate of the situation. No disrespect intended. There are too many emotional factors this time around. |
|
|
|
So your ASIC Resistance notion boils down to "economically unviable", and I agree that is a good notion.
I just don't get your distinction between it not being an algorithmic property yet a context property of the system built on that algorithm when in fact these limitations in the ultimately static context arise out of the algorithmic properties in the first place. Unless of course you can provide numbers.
The algorithmic properties will have a very minor impact on the timing of achieving "economic viability". It's technically nothing at all to do with "the ability to produce an ASIC" for the POW algorithm. And to bring it further into the clear, I suspect the majority of the difference in cost between producing a scrypt ASIC Miner and a SHA ASIC Miner is going to be in the supporting miner hardware, which is going to require a lot more activity to occur off-chip than bitcoin does. I'm going to make a statement here that is absolutely outside of my realm of knowledge. It's actually possible that the design, production and fab of a scrypt asic would end up being cheaper than the same process for a SHA ASIC due to this very fact. There are probably people on this forum who know the real answer to that, I don't. Note very carefully the distinction between the ASIC itself, and the ASIC miner. What sort of numbers do you mean? We're in practically uncharted waters here (one data point does not make much of a chart). I don't have any. |
|
|
|
I would just ship it off to litecoinpool - Is that PPS? Mining noob here getting 50 40 kH/s. Why do these people not solo mine? Top Current Hash Rates User kH/s LTC/d 1 asun023 163,213 204.7 2 omgomg 78,909 99.0 3 yochdog 75,393 94.6 4 stanwolls 72,471 90.9 5 fjshwyh 66,906 83.9 6 trungkd41 50,038 62.8 7 cowcow 49,045 61.5 8 savumi 44,019 55.2 9 Boozer 43,928 55.1 Because this way they get part of any blocks you find, too (that works both ways). This is reasonable on Litecoin. If you're arriving with 300 - 400% the network hash rate, it's not a problem and you don't need to share. |
|
|
|
Strongly disagree. It is, at least in principle, possible to make an algorithm that an intel core i7 is the ideal chip for (that is, an intel core i7 IS the asic for this algorithm). You'd have to write the algorithm specifically for that task, but it is possible.
Wait, are we in the same thread? Anyways, no you would have a chip-specific algorithm, this wouldn't magically make the i7 (a general computing device) suddenly become an ASIC. This would possibly be a way to build social/economic ASIC-resistance into a coin, because it would be illegal to make it, and nearly impossible to compete with Intel on price. Either way, I'm not exactly sure what you were reading when you wrote that. If you're not a native english speaker I apologize for possibly confusing grammar. |
|
|
|
Very Happily  (Says a guy with about 9 Kh/s) |
|
|
|
Let them sue me, I like it Bounty will be paid, soon as I have your MST wallet address. Thank you I may not be into this coin, but I do like your attitude. |
|
|
|
ASIC Resistance is a real condition, but it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the encryption algorithm in use.
It's simply an economic situation, and it's fluid.
Care any less to actually define your "real condition" notion of ASIC Resistance? I get that it's an economic situation, and fluid, though According to this randomly googled website the market cap of Litecoin is currently approximately $50,475,892. I haven't spoken to a Fabricator however let's just go with some numbers bantied around the forum and say it's going to cost 5-7m (USD) to get your ASICs out of the FAB. This ignores the cost (a couple more million) of integrating them into a special purpose computing device to support the interfaces and off-chip requirements of the ASIC. So let's just guesstimate that we're about 8m out of pocket and have a litecoin ASIC in our hands. If anyone, I mean anyone finds out that it exists, miners and traders are going to dump Litecoin like a dead tree dropping leaves. So now you're 8m out of pocket and practically the only person around to secure a dead block chain. Meantime people are fleeing every alt that uses any variation of Scrypt as fast as they can. Because let's face it, no one is going to do a scrypt ASIC at this point and then mount it in a device that can't handle variable n. It would be self-destructive to create that machine right now. Your only hope would be to mass produce and sell the first round cheap enough to attract the current large litecoin holders. And you'ld probably have to let them pay in Litecoin, while the majority of holders were in the middle of a massive dump. If you got a few people to buy, you could all sit around and transfer coins between yourselves. If you got enough, you might be able to start a process of recovery, But it wouldn't be the same, and you would get all the same "elitist" complaints and exodus of miners that bitcoin is getting. So, there's a description of "social" or "economic" ASIC-Resistance for you. Absolutely nothing at all to do with the algorithm in use for the coin. EDIT: totally unsubstantiated, but I guess if litecoin breaks ~200M - 250M USD market cap, we will see scrypt ASIC within months. For the same reason we have Litecoin - people sorry they missed the train the first time around. While thats all sound in theory, Bitcoin said ASIC isn't death. What was the market cap of BTC when the first -> RETAIL <- ASIC shipped? 1b +? At the right time, it won't mean death. Right now, I think it would. If not for litecoin, certainly for a lot of small alts. It would just result in a huge new flood of crypto-coins. Probably just using other features of scrypt-jane LMAO. |
|
|
|
ASIC Resistance is a real condition, but it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the encryption algorithm in use.
It's simply an economic situation, and it's fluid.
Care any less to actually define your "real condition" notion of ASIC Resistance? I get that it's an economic situation, and fluid, though According to this randomly googled website the market cap of Litecoin is currently approximately $50,475,892. I haven't spoken to a Fabricator however let's just go with some numbers bantied around the forum and say it's going to cost 5-7m (USD) to get your ASICs out of the FAB. This ignores the cost (a couple more million) of integrating them into a special purpose computing device to support the interfaces and off-chip requirements of the ASIC. So let's just guesstimate that we're about 8m out of pocket and have a litecoin ASIC in our hands. If anyone, I mean anyone finds out that it exists, miners and traders are going to dump Litecoin like a dead tree dropping leaves. So now you're 8m out of pocket and practically the only person around to secure a dead block chain. Meantime people are fleeing every alt that uses any variation of Scrypt as fast as they can. Because let's face it, no one is going to do a scrypt ASIC at this point and then mount it in a device that can't handle variable n. It would be self-destructive to create that machine right now. Your only hope would be to mass produce and sell the first round cheap enough to attract the current large litecoin holders. And you'ld probably have to let them pay in Litecoin, while the majority of holders were in the middle of a massive dump. If you got a few people to buy, you could all sit around and transfer coins between yourselves. If you got enough, you might be able to start a process of recovery, But it wouldn't be the same, and you would get all the same "elitist" complaints and exodus of miners that bitcoin is getting. So, there's a description of "social" or "economic" ASIC-Resistance for you. Absolutely nothing at all to do with the algorithm in use for the coin. EDIT: totally unsubstantiated, but I guess if litecoin breaks ~200M - 250M USD market cap, we will see scrypt ASIC within months. For the same reason we have Litecoin - people sorry they missed the train the first time around. |
|
|
|
|
EorFNQE7odkS3cSNUF2iWMwuRuiATTozvi
CAP ME
|
|
|
|
lol, think there maybe some copyright problems there. It seems, however, to capture the spirit of the project. |
|
|
|
the bounties will still be paid as promised.additionaly it looks like an additional 1900 tokens will be available for giveaways. i may end up dividig it among everyone who's posted in this thread up to this point for good measure.
Just getting a post in  |
|
|
|
Not really. Naked, actual, unlidded ASICs look like this. Beautiful, no? Yes, it is. the flower is a great touch. A sign of someone taking pleasure in their work. |
|
|
|
ASIC Resistance is a real condition, but it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the encryption algorithm in use.
It's simply an economic situation, and it's fluid.
Litecoin (and other coins) are not ASIC-Resistant in any inherent fashion, and they're certainly not using "ASIC-Resistant Alogrithms". They're just not currently worth the bother.
If you are backing a coin because you think it is "ASIC Resistant" you're going to learn that this is a self-defeating goal when that coin actually achieves any significant real world use.
I just wanted to make a separate thread for this because there are SO MANY THREADS that I want to post it in. I hope that someone out there feels helped by this explanation.
Whew, all right fit over - Carry on.
Thank you for the lengthy dissertation of why, mathematically, the number of computations and memory transactions performed doing one sCrypt hash and one SHA256 hash are exactly the same and have comparably easy implementations on application specific integrated circuits. Consider submitting it for your Master's thesis. Thank you for missing the point completely, and making a completely irrelevant response. It doesn't even qualify as reductio ad absurdum. Here's your hat. Maybe the pictures weren't enough. |
|
|
|
The only ASIC resistant crypto is one that doesn't use "mining" or hashing algorithms as a POW and minting.....which is currently only ours (or Ripple of course).
That said, you are indeed correct in your statement that any crypto that uses a hashcash based POW algo can and will indeed be ASIC broken when the return on investment is good enough.
Yeah I've pointed a couple of people at emunie. It looks like good stuff. And it looks like it can go a lot further, a lot more effectively than bitcoin. I think there are many people here who haven't realized that it isn't just another satoshi-clone. |
|
|
|
|
I sometimes wonder if satoshi didn't bail because he saw BTC getting too big to be safe. He left before it was even finished.
This first crypto-currency and low-capacity block chain are lovely proof of concept and wonderful educational tools.
Ready to secure a 1b market cap? Its doing OK so far. By 10b we will have "account creation" FPGAs and maybe ASICs hunting for key collisions. Knowing there are 1b USD + accounts it might be nearly as enticing to brute force for keys as it is to SOLOmine for the network.
Able to become the "world currency" like some idealists here seem to hope? not ever. Not even possible for the bitcoin blockchain to support 1% of global commerce. The backbone model has more sustainability but it will never be more than one of many options.
Litecoin, a copy of bitcoin but more wasteful to secure (on purpose). More wasteful to secure but just as easy (well simple if not easy) to attack.
Where do you see that going?
|
|
|
|
I'm having this problem:  I just want to point out that there is no such thing as an "ASIC Proof" algorithm. I also want to point out that there's no such thing as an "ASIC-Resistant" algorithm. While I'm at it I'm going to go ahead and point out that THIS:  Is NOT an asic. Now for those of you that are crapping yourselves right now and about to flip out and call me crazy, I'll clarify. That black box is a special purpose computing device, that uses 1 or more ASICs to achieve it's goal. These:  are ASICs. Now anybody that wants to argue that there can be an ASIC-Proof algorithm that a general purpose processor such as an i7 can compute just needs to put on an idiot hat and go sit in the corner. Yes, I know that's rude as hell but, c'mon. ASIC Resistance is a real condition, but it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the encryption algorithm in use. It's simply an economic situation, and it's fluid. Litecoin (and other coins) are not ASIC-Resistant in any inherent fashion, and they're certainly not using "ASIC-Resistant Alogrithms". They're just not currently worth the bother. If you are backing a coin because you think it is "ASIC Resistant" you're going to learn that this is a self-defeating goal when that coin actually achieves any significant real world use. I just wanted to make a separate thread for this because there are SO MANY THREADS that I want to post it in. I hope that someone out there feels helped by this explanation. Whew, all right fit over - Carry on. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
