Bitcoin Forum
November 14, 2018, 12:27:42 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »
1  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: January 12, 2014, 05:00:07 PM
We do not have many POS in YAC now at all, I do not understand why the sudden rush and madness to "fix" POS when there is hardly any POS at all. Has anyone looked at the blockchains that we are comparing YAC to, meaning PPC and NovaCoin, they are 90% POS or more.

Is there are alternate motive behind all this?
Well, the current system isn't safe from doublespends so that's the main motivation behind this.
Question will be how to fix this mess here, or if there's even an acceptable fix for it.

PS: A big part of the problem is that "there is hardly any POS at all"

2  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: January 04, 2014, 05:18:10 PM
Can somebody explain me why there's so many orphaned PoW-blocks in plain English please?
Why this wasn't happened before (in first 6 month)?
Why it happening now!?

Thank you in advance!!

PS: I've read all the posts above  Tongue
I belive most of those PoW were unintentionally orphraned, but it could also be abused.

Sometimes your client wasn't able to get a freshly generated PoS into the blockchain. If you have other adresses that can PoS you are the only one that sees your longer chain and begins to PoS on top of your not acepted PoS block.

If you then resend your block(s) you orphran all other PoS-blocks if your chain has higher trust.
The more txt you have in your wallet it lags more and more and it becomes more likely that you block doesn't get transmitted on the first try and some people resend then manually.
3  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: January 04, 2014, 04:29:46 PM
Anyway, I've got the code changes ready. You're all invited to review them. https://github.com/saironiq/yacoin-cc/commit/acf917a2c42cb947b08a9a7878ceafd6045ea24c
Good example of simpler != better statement. It will help you for one threat, but opens another hole. Actually, such fix is less secure than calculate block trust using an original algorithm. It can be forked without a significant part of stake or hashpower by running a parallel chain at lower PoS & PoW difficulties. Because it makes no difference between coindays consumed or hashpower wasted. One CPU is able to beat the entire network.
Oh, haven't seen that.

I agree that these changes wouldn't keepit safer for long. Problem with fixing PoS on it's own (Sairon's,NVC's and f.e. PPCs)has usually major negative sideeffects. NVC's solution gives huge inflation and I think this would hurt YAC significantly more that it hurts NVC so be shouldn't go there.


On the other hand am I not able to find any loopholes in my Decentralized Centralized Checkpointing-idea and it's simple.
It doesn't change anyting for 99% of the people owning YAC and only a few rich guys get higher rewards for their effords.

Decentralized Centralized Checkpointing idea:
Was in this thread a few posts bevor, klick the link to read it. Would still require no 2 PoS blocks touching.
4  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: January 04, 2014, 04:02:19 PM
No need to add another signing as PoS works in a similar way, anyway. PoS was supposed to be a distributed check-pointing and look where it got us. Wink

...

Anyway, I've got the code changes ready. You're all invited to review them. https://github.com/saironiq/yacoin-cc/commit/acf917a2c42cb947b08a9a7878ceafd6045ea24c

I hope that not the reason why you think this way about my idea with decentralized centralized Checkpointing, but I think you don't dislike it just because of that. Anyways:


I know how PoS was "supposed" to work, but basically it's crap now without some mayor changes (even with your new rules additionally). PoS is allowed with wallets that have just 2YAC balance so just having such small PoS block doesn't add any security. On the other hand miners could do the following profitable:

Generate a bunch of small adresses and wait for them to be ready to POS. Once a pool found a PoS they keep it secret and mine a PoW on top of it. Most of the time they will fail to mine a block but they have more time to mine than the rest of the network since they can ophran 1 block. This gives them an advantage over mining without such and would result in loosing a lot of hashpower.

It also destroys the puropse of PoS adding any form of additional security. Where is the security benefit from having PoS-blocks with such little weight. PoS are sacre and unless they become meaningless for security (small PoS witout PoS-rewards). Mining pools wouldn't even have to own these small adresses, they could rent them or buy unpublished blocks. If they pay more than 5% per year even I'd consider splitting up but giving them a unpublished PoS-block is cost free.
A collaterall would prevent any fraud from the owners and would only be paid if miners actually lost some work.

This adjustment would also reduce the security benefits from having PoS at all so we could rather automatically increase every wallet with 5% per year and stop all that madness.
5  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: January 04, 2014, 07:15:58 AM
Another issue is that YAC needs protection from 51% PoW attacks and with PoS trust=PoW trust we would loose such.

Bitcoin has a unique hash-algorithm so that the bitcoincommunity with their hardware can compute far more efficient than the rest of the world. This makes it extreme hard to attack it with standard computers. Cryptos like LTC are mined with a lot of GPU's which are also not that common.

A CPU on YAC has around the same hash/s as a GPU so a botnet could easily rape us without 51%protection from PoS.
This makes me belive that PoS trust=PoW trust isn't possible without some sort of checkpoints. Somehow I think we need some sort of CentralCheckpointing...

What do you guys think about the following:
A PoS blocks trust is limited to a singe PoWs unless it get's confirmed by CentralAuthority CA in the next block. Such CA only needs to send a txt to the owner of the previous block. This would limit the power of CA to reverse just a few blocks and could only be done once. Everyone that was online would notice such by having 2 different forks which both have a confirmed PoS block in it. Miners are usually always on.

In order to get rid of the Central thing we could allow everyone to send such txts for a fee. Only the authority with the biggest balance get`s accepted and will get a small % reward later on. A minimun for becoming a CA should prevent someone to fake beeing a legit member of our community and a thief would rather steal the whole adress.

If (or better since) this isn't enough damage for someone that abuses his power we could also go where it hurts. I don't see any problem if all miners would agree to never ever accept a txt from an adress that was used to scam the whole community by this. Since freezing funds would also be nessasary to have more than just one guy getting all the rewards this wouldn't go much further. Opening a box we should never even touch... Baaaaad.

EDIT:
Reward could be randomly given to one of the 10 biggest CA-candidates that participated based on howmuch coins they have. Since sending a txt from a wallet has to send the spare change to a new adress we shouldn't go by biggest balance, we should go by biggest output.

A cooldownperiod of [n(no of candidates)+5] PoS-blocks would allow all candidates to participate and reduce the damage a single wallet can do.

EDIT: Requires also no 2 PoS blocks touching.

6  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: January 02, 2014, 11:03:18 PM
.)Sairon's rules
I hope I made it clear why I belive that they aren't good without some additional rules. Basically a trading a tecnical for a huge economical problem.

.)Sairon's rules + Doubling PoW reward on blocks after a PoS block AND requireing a far higher minimumbalance for PoS


Actually, I'm not clear on why you think disallowing adjacent POS blocks would be harmful - if a POS block fails, the coin age is not lost and it can be re-attempted after a POW block has been completed - with 1 minute target block intervals, would it even be noticable?

It seems like checking the type of block that occurred and not allowing adjacent POS blocks is significantly less radical of a change than your suggested doubling POW rewards for blocks that follow POS blocks and requiring wallets to be arbitrarily large to even allow them to POS.  I'm failing to see what benefit those changes would have other than it keeps people from attempting malicious activity with small numbers of coins - the POW doubling just seems arbitrary..
I've written like 5 post here about why I belive Sairon's rules alone bring a lot of problems since these new rules could be exploided by a few. The few would then profit from harming the whole community for their own profits.I hope they made it clear why I think this way and won't repeat that unless someone states a question(or critics) about them.



On my additional rules in addition to Sairon's rules.
Well, there' a reason for choosing exactly double rewards* AND higher minimums for PoS.


Doubling PoS rewards woud make PoS-PoW more profitable than PoW-PoW so miner wouldn't benefit from a PoW-only currency. No incentives to fight PoS blocks (regardless if possible/profitable/...). As you noticed it's far more radical, but the real radicalism is in raising the minimum balance for PoS.

This would prevent most people from ever generating their own PoS blocks later on. The current minimum of ~20YAC to mint would be some money if YAC get's widly accepted, but for this to work it would have to be far far higher. I think a minimum of 1000YAC would be nessasary to prevent PoS-pooling and requireing fees on everyone that isn't in a pool.

Again this isn't something I want, it's something I belive is nessasary. Otherwise PoS could be pooled and miners would keep their PoS-blocks secret to exclusively mine on their own PoS-blocks. Chances of finding a block are euqual, but if they get lucky that would be a super-jackpot. Double rewards means magnitudes more profit for them since PoW mining is expensive. There is no cost for not submiting a valid PoS block.

All this wouldn't be very problematic, but since every mining pool would use pooled PoS-adresses (that are only used if a block is found by the pool) stuff get's messy and PoS isn't decentralized anymore. (Among other problems, f.e. fees for confirming a big PoS block)


*) Reducing all PoW-rewards that aren't directly after a PoS-block by 50% would have the same effect, but I doubt we could ever agree on such. I'd actually prefer that, but it's utopical that we could ever agree on such.

EDIT: Edit edits his edit... Don't know whats wrong with me today.
7  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: January 02, 2014, 09:04:56 PM
I've got a "workaround" for this issue. Still, it requires a hard-fork.
It's quite simple, just disallow two consecutive PoS blocks and lower PoS trust to match PoW (1).
There's no way PoS-only miner can orphan a single block.
As I said in my previous few post I belive those new rules on it's own are exploidable and would harm YAC more than CentralCheckpointing. There is a reason why other PoS coins decided to use that awful solution.
Read my previous posts to undertand why I think so.


I don't think they can be changed at all, I have spend hours thinking about on alternatives that would also prevent double spends. My conclusion was that these can't be changed, but maby we could add something to them.

What I don't know is what how we could solve this, but I had a few ideas:
.)Sairon's rules
I hope I made it clear why I belive that they aren't good without some additional rules. Basically a trading a tecnical for a huge economical problem.

.)Sairon's rules + Doubling PoW reward on blocks after a PoS block AND requireing a far higher minimumbalance for PoS

.)Decentralised CentralCeckpoints
A big wallet (50k+) can be staked for the privilege to checkpoint and gets coins for doing so. If the network realizes that this guy wasn't honest we will never ever allow transaction from that wallet. Everyone with that much YAC should be able to do it.
Opens a box that shouldn't ever be opend, but maby a lottery +big earning for an honest winner could resolve this.
.)CentralCheckpoints from the dev

.)Proof_of_Stake#Cementing
Very very bad idea

.)Suggestions?

As you might notice they all got their drawbacks and frankly I'd prefer the current system to work or CentralCheckpointing if we can't fix the problems with sairon's rules.
8  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: January 02, 2014, 08:21:48 PM
PoW miners will never be able to remove the whole PoS function and every block, but they could make the whole PoS system useless in order to maximize profits. I belive the rules you proposed are they only way besides CentralCheckpoints to solve the current doublespend problem.

PoW miners certainly won't maximize their profits by orphaning PoS. On the contrary - their mining revenue would be much lower if they decided to attempt orphaning PoS.

All they would have to do is make it useless for the purposes it should serve. Centralizes PoS would work but would also be pointless.

Examples:

1)All miners would benefit if most blocks are PoW and the few remaining (big) PoS are paying a fixed fee. Rich adresses would benefit from excluding small wallets from PoS-rewards. The other people don't matter.

2)Even if miners can't agree on a fixed fee, they could agree on a minimum size for a wallet to PoS. (Higher minimum->less PoS blocks ->more PoW->far more new coins generated->more profit). Benefits both miners and rich guys.

3)When several PoS blocks are competeing for one spot miners can decide who will win the spot. Combined with richguys spliting up their wallets they could together require a fixed fee for a PoS-spot. It doesn't matter for the miner on what block they mine ontop of.



All those possibilities would destroy the benefits of PoS and make it useless. That are just 3 obvious ones and it's likely that there is a non obvious but profitable one. The problem with your rules is that they can be easily exploided by a few for just their own benefit. Usually if that's possible it will also be exploided (examples:banks, govermets,... mankind)



Is cementing an option, or would that be really bad with our current distribution of hashpower (mostly centralized)?  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake#Cementing

Very very (very) bad idea ... NO.
9  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: January 02, 2014, 07:55:28 PM
Favoring PoW over PoS or vice-versa isn't benefiting one rich group over another.
Only when PoS is fair and the new rules could be abused so that only rich adresses (>10kYAC) can PoS while most other (poor) people can't)
10  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: January 02, 2014, 07:53:29 PM
The new rules make it possible to destroy PoS since they favour PoW so extreme over PoS.
No, it does not favor PoW over PoS - both have the exact same value.
I'm not talking about individual blocks, I'm talking about the whole PoS system vs the whole PoW system.
It favours it since PoW can ophran a PoS but it's not possible the other way round.
That's something we want, but also something that brings new problems.

PoW miners will never be able to remove the whole PoS function and every block, but they could make the whole PoS system useless in order to maximize profits. I belive the rules you proposed are they only way besides CentralCheckpoints to solve the current doublespend problem.

They do come with some enourmous problems that we have to fix befor we implement them, later isn't possible. I don't think we can change your rules, but we have to add something to them to save POS. Doubling rewards for a PoW block after a PoS would strengten PoS but also increase inflation dramatically.

Then we would also have to change the chaintrust on PoS blocks so that always the biggest PoS candidate wins.
This will be a complex problem if we don't want to screw up.
11  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: January 02, 2014, 07:26:58 PM
Has this idea been done?  Built-in POW-POS-POW-POS staggered blocks?  What implications does it have other than fix the POW orphan problem (ie unintended consequences)?
I belive that (if profitable) miners/groups interrested could rape (think of it as a hack) the protocoll and make PoS useless.
You can't ban PoW-PoW-PoW since we don't have that many PoS, we're only talking about banning POS-POS


If significant (<50%) of miners could agree f.e. on not accepting a small PoS block and only working on top of big PoS and PoW blocks. Just because the protocoll says that you should always build on top of the longest chain doesn't mean it can force you to always do.


How miners could profitable ignore small PoS blocks:

1)New unofficial rule: Don't build on small PoS blocks or better ask for a fixedPoS-fee (no fork or official announcement)
2)A new small PoS apears, but miners rather continue their work on a block where a lot of work has been done already.

No PoS-block could be mined on top of the small PoS so they don't matter at all. Only PoW matters and the honest network would have to be stronger than the unethical network that has already done a lot of work. Beeing unethical gives more rewards since rewards on PoW>>>>>PoS.

Big wallests will always be able to protect there PoS-blocks with a fixed fee and most others won't be able to pay such fee.

--> PoS useless.

The argument ("but then they will have to fight against honest PoS and PoW") doesn't work either. (Pooling PoS possible)

EDIT:red stuff
12  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: January 02, 2014, 07:03:43 PM
Also, the gain from orphaning PoS is ZERO.
It feels like this could be used so game the system.

The new rules make it possible to destroy PoS since they favour PoW so extreme over PoS. Maby there isn't even a profitable exploid for them, but we surely couldn't rule that out. If there is one we couldn't fix without a hardfork and that's something we couldn't agree on.

On the other hand a lot of important groups could egoistically benefit from a non working PoS system. Miners would love to mine all blocks and rich people would like to exclude most other people from PoS. It doesn't matter that 99.99% get screwd in the current banking system as long as those 0.01% can make the rules and profit from them.


We need to find a way that favours a combination of PoW/PoS over a system with just one of those. The "no 2 PoS-blocks touching"-rule prevents PoW to extinct, but how can we protect PoS*?

The current system also protects both, but unfortuneatly it doesn't work. If we want it to be fixed with something that doesn't risk PoS or PoW. (Even if that is CentralCheckpoints, but I really hate that)


*)In a useful form. A fixed fee, f.e 50YAC/PoSbock wouldn't affect me at all, but most others couldn't PoS anymore and so make it useless. I'd even benefit from everyone having to pay such fee.

Sorry that it took me 20replies to write this. I will comment on those once I've read them.
Never took me so long to formulate an idea

13  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: January 02, 2014, 04:11:59 PM
I've got a "workaround" for this issue. Still, it requires a hard-fork.
It's quite simple, just disallow two consecutive PoS blocks and lower PoS trust to match PoW (1).
There's no way PoS-only miner can orphan a single block.
Matching PoS and POW trust has enourmous consequences so we have to be very carefull here.

The biggest problem is that it'd be possible for PoW-miners to turn YAC into PoW-only!
Once we are there we couldn't get back without a hardfork and it's unlikely we could possibly agree on such by then. PoW is far more important than just distributing initial coins.
and unable to secure the network later on since f.e. it can be centralized.
(I've written someting about that on yacointalk, that's also why YAC is special)

I belive the current problem of one PoS-block overwriting more than 6blocks is far less than the problems we would get when we have no more or just a bit PoS. PoS as whole has to be much stronger than PoW so that all miners couldn't agree on "just ophraning all PoS" to make more profit. A PoW-block will always have more new coins than the average PoS block so most PoS would disapear and the rest 'd be centralized.

PoS mining is truly decentralized so we should try to keep it as important as possible.
I can't think of a technical way to prevent doublespends AND miners from fighting PoS.
What we could do is increase PoW-rewards for miners that mine on top of a PoS block.

It must be either chaintrust PoS>>>PoW or new coins generated in ...-PoW-PoW-PoS-PoW >...-PoW-PoW-PoW-PoW. We all know that PoS>PoW is problematic so we should go with the 2nd.

I'm glad you've got something in mind, I've spent a couple hours trying to find out what the fix novacoin implemented was, even digging through the code, but I can't isolate a single POS fix - there have been quite a few tweaks to POS in Novacoin.  I can see that  they currently have adjacent POS blocks, so what did they do to address this issue?
AFAIK Novacoin "fixed" this by having a centralized checkpointing system in-place. Essentially one person controlling the whole network (deciding on the valid chain), which defeats the decentralized nature of cryptocoins.
A centralized checkpoint for the next few months would be far better than loosing or having less PoS in the future than we have now.

The only issue is deciding on the blockchain fork date. It should be fairly soon, but not too soon as we should give a majority of the network time to upgrade. How about 1 month?
I think that's reasonable.

EDIT: Sorry smtg wrong
EDIT2: Added stuff in RED.
14  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: December 23, 2013, 10:41:24 PM
Thinking ahead to the next N-increase, how difficult would it be to change the units on the cpu miner from khash to hash?  So instead of showing

Code:
[2013-12-23 14:23:19] thread 3: 4322 hashes, 0.07 khash/s

It would show something like...

Code:
[2013-12-23 14:23:19] thread 3: 4322 hashes, 75 hash/s

I think it may even be helpful now.
+1
Usually I hate changing unit prefixes to make something look bigger since only idiots would fall for it. On the other hand only idiots would belive that hash/s should be always the same as for LTC on other cryptos. A warning for non idiots that hash/s are ok should be adden nevertheless, not everyone knows everything about the crypto he mines.
15  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Gimme some YAC on: December 20, 2013, 11:39:12 AM
Gimme some YAC

YLdkJV2Yep9Q5pn64vHaLpFb8YLPMmuFtw


Thanks.
No signature --> No coins
This can be done easily with yacoin-qt so there is no excuse (or mercy) with anyone who didn't sign a message.
16  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development on: December 20, 2013, 12:52:57 AM
YACoin is the fairest coin ever.  People are able to mine it even now with a higher reward per block than the early adopters.  I guess the best criticism of YACoin is that it really screwed the early adopters--particularly compared to other coins. 
It was/is extremly fair compared to others.

I don't belive it's fair for a few early adopters to make huge amounts of money for just beeing at the right place and time. Since YAC prices crashed after launch everyone regardless skills/timing/equipment could buy that amount of YAC he wanted to buy. Everyone without a mining rig or expensive ASICs can mine so even if you weren't capable to spend a few bugs on YAC you could still get some for free.

This used to be the same on bitcoin, but only if you were damm early to the party. For YAC I belive people will still profit from buying into it a few decades from now while on bitcoin everyone that buys in a few years will get screwed hard. If you haven't got any bitcoins by then you will have to pay enormous prices and have the risk that noone will buy at the same insane prices you bought. PoW keeps YAC sane while on BTC it doesn't matter anymore.
17  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Innovative Alternative Crypto Currencies on: December 15, 2013, 11:25:24 PM
Thanks for the info on YAC. I agree it does seem ASIC resistant... but then again, so do Quark/SecureCoin/A lot of coins. I can't add them all simply because they are ASIC resistant. I'm hesistant to add them all because of their different PoWs.. if I started doing that then this list will get really long really fast. I guess I'm still on the fence.
I don't think that claiming ASIC resistance is innovativ, but increasing memory over time (and the eco. features) are.

It's the only crypto I'm aware of that can't be mined with some of the hardware that it was used to be mined with in the past.
Take a look at what computers calculated 20 years ago and think how you would calculate those now if it was about performance. You'd use FPGA insted of computers and so all other crypto end up mined by specialized hardware.

It doesn't matter if that hardware is called ASIC, FPGA or even mining rig.
This won't happen for YAC since blade servers are not limited to mining crypto.
18  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: YAC Raffle Giveaway on: December 13, 2013, 03:41:35 PM
YGddbMvakdHHUJeX2hNLxuQTjowHk9ibfs

Thanks !  Wink

YGddbMvakdHHUJeX2hNLxuQTjowHk9ibfs

Thanks !  Grin

Usually I wouldn't check for someone posting more than once, but since yacoin-qt doesn't support sending twice to the same adress I noticed this since I had to manually go thru 30 adresses and delete yours. Just to be safe I deleted both.

tx send
3e5c18b303eab77b78ee0b8a5decab5917b288de759484c644d8cbb436c7e6c3

Sorry for slow responce, but had been damm buisy IRL.
Those who didn't qualify for the 25YAC and had to wait so long got a little bonus on top.

19  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: YAC Raffle Giveaway on: December 13, 2013, 03:13:35 PM
Transaction in progress.
20  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Innovative Alternative Crypto Currencies on: December 13, 2013, 02:54:42 PM
YAC - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196196.0
Quark - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260031.0
Secure Coin - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270852.0
My problem with the above coins:  I'm still on the fence about the coins that are changing the hashing alogrithms to make them CPU/GPU only. I'm afraid I will determine them "innovative" and then next week someone release a GPU miner for them... it's happened before with many coins that claim to be "CPU/GPU only". Which one of these three is the most GPU/ASIC resistant? Or is there a different one that is more GPU/ASIC resistant than these three?
No idea about the others, but for YAC it was never GPU resistance although a lot of idiots used to belive this.
YAC is currently mined mostly by GPUs, but I think this will change.

I'd say YAC is nearly 99.9% ASIC resistant unless it would grow to a size far far bigger than bitcoin today. It changes memory requirement over time so a new ASIC would have to be made for every new n-factor since it doubles memory needed. Currently this happens 2 times per year but there will be less and less n-changes in the future. There would also be competition from botnets/servers/... so ASICs are unlikely to break even on development costs.

An n-change also favours CPU strongly over GPU so it will make it harder and harder for GPUs.
YAC is the only crypto I'm aware of that adapts to technological innovation by making hashing "harder" over time.
There had been FPGA implementations, but they do not function anymore. For most cryptos it will be there hadn't been
FPGA implementations, but in the future this will be possible. YAC's the other(better) way round.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!