lets look at algorithms - an Algorithm ABC guide.

Way back, in the good old Golden days of Cryptocurrency (nearly one month ago) i wrote this:

http://kolinevans.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/why-there-could-be-a-mini-revolution-occuring-in-crypto-currency/

Its a general summary of how SCRYPT is headed towards Centralization due to ASICs and how a new algorithm "cPoW" (Complex Proof of Work) would take over, the reasons for that prediction were not just simple mathematical reason but also took into account market sociology and psychology.

I also Posted here:

http://forum.qrk.cc/thread/1949/proposal-fork-sgminer-quark-miner

which i may have edited but i explained that the current cPoW miner is probably a "dirty" (its actually in the name) version and has some more efficiency to be built in and that the designer has that version active now (which is normal):

if we assume 100% more efficiency that puts us at about 4.5mh# on a real cPoW algo and probably close to the similar Watts use and resulting heat.

cPoW

4.5mh# GPU - V - 865k# CPU on a FX AMD

this means that at full efficiency the GPU has a 500% lead on CPU not taking into account power and initial cost.

taking both into account its obviously lower.

also if there are further improvements in the CPU miner this could slightly close that gap further.

how does Scrypt line up:

SCRYPT

https://litecoin.info/Mining_hardware_comparison#AMD_.28ATI.29 < Ref

950~ K# GPU v 65k# AMD FX CPU

this means that GPU has about a 1450% lead over CPU.

This still means that cPoW is much more accessible to both the GPU and CPU market , I expect that the more efficient miner will come forward with time as everyone knows it exists anyhow, (such is evolution)

but this is not only about "ASIC Resistance" this is about markets and cPoW (as predicted) is what the largest % of the market find the most acceptable because the gap between CPU and GPU is vastly narrowed 200%~ on the fake version and about 500%~ with the real miner.

Good old SHA256

here is the problem with the "Secure network" argument.

the problem with that argument is that the market of crypto currency users are humans.

let me explain

Centralized does not equal secure in a decentralized market.

your money in the bank is not secure because it is under a centralized authority, likewise if your network is under a centralized authority it is also not secure.

but it gets worse......

if you are a keen reader : http://kolinevans.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/how-to-simply-understand-decentralized-economics-for-austrian-econonists/

I propose that Crypto currency is a new form of "decentralized economics" the reason it is a new form of economic is because it causes humans to fundamentally value an entity is a different way, when we value in a different way we have essentially a new set of economic rules.

guess how value is derived in the new economics?

though Decentralization.

so what does that say for the long term value of a centralized asset and network? (if I'm correct)

Summary:

the whole world is heading into a "decentralized" evolution, not just the "West" but in every place on earth "Main Stream Media" (Centralized Media) is on the decline, also other centralized assets.

a bit of Price manipulation here and there is temporary, i believe Bitcoin's value rest solely on the future viability of the USD as a reserve currency.

If the USD fails Bitcoin will be saved. if the USD pulls a rabbit out of a hat without world war 3 Bitcoin is (without major overhaul) on a long road downwards.

either way if the USD fails and we end up with quasi Gold backed IMF SDRs (not a great solution) and that stabilizes the market , then same rule applies.

Centralization of either Network or Asset is not secure.

To make it really clear for people:

if we look at for example a cPoW algo like x11 (Darkcoin) V (Bitcoin) both are on a long distribution so miners find them both viable.

from a pure mathematical vector Both are equally as difficult to "51%" attack, if Dark added extra security it would actually have a security premium over Bitcoin.

but form a Centralization point of view cPoW is far ahead , as Joe public can splash out $600 + about $1000 and set up 5 rigs with one CPU and one GPU and mine a decent % of cPoW of course this can not me done with SHA256 (Bitcoin)

To make it really simple for people that might be a bit slower to understand:

as the ASICs for SHA256 get larger and fewer, soon they will be held by very few interested parties, now what if those "interested parties" are not interested in the future of Cryptocurrency.

thus the essential flaw in the "more power = more security" argument.