I started a thread along similar lines:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244792.0It needs to confirm quickly. I place the outside limit at about 2 minutes although I am sure there is room to debate it. That wouldn't necessarily have to be 100% confirmation in 2 minutes but something like 95% or better.
I believe it should use SHA-256 for reasons I outline in my thread.
No worries. I really was just trying to get this same kind of conversation going. You have managed to get more of it going than me so I am just as happy to have it in your thread.
If a new coin based on scrypt (or anything else for that matter) really takes off, it is not clear that some kind of ASIC gear monopoly would not develop around it. It is a good bet that an ASIC monopoly on a new SHA-256 based currency would not happen.[/b]
I dont understand. In my opinion
ASICs=Centralization by increased barriers of entry over CPU or GPU based hardware mining. So why would the formation of ASIC monopolies be unlikely with a new SHA-256 based currency??
Also pls consider that putting the hash rate to good use, e.g. Folding@Home or SETI would be out of the question with a SHA-256 based currency. If somehow there could be another use for all that computational power, alot would be improved. Maybe some mining algorithms could be devised that make it possible to secure the network and also cater for other tasks? Imagine an algorithm that is similar to popular problems, like Folding@Home or SETI algos and also suitable to secure the network. "Miners" could decide in what market it would be more lucrative to compete in. Maybe they direct 60% of hashing power towards the network and 40% towards FOLDING@HOME or they rent their computing power out to services that they can make use of while securing the network. Idk.
What I mean is that the other hashing algorithms have not been through the ASIC transition while SHA-256 is going through it now. None of them is really ASIC proof. So for any algorithm where ASICs do not now exist, the potential does exist for a small group or single entity to take over the currency with an ASIC monopoly later. I do not believe this is any longer possible with SHA-256. You are right that it is less accessible than GPU hashing but since there are multiple sources of SHA-256 ASICs for everyone (with the money) at this point, a single group or entity should not be able to get a majority of hashing power.
I have one final suggestion for this bitcoin 2.0. Can we call them credits instead of coins? I'm sick of all the endless new coins and its about time the sci-fi oriented among us get the currency referred to as credits that everyone has been talking about forever. Plus it just sounds like the future.
Show Posts
