Why I say X11 and SHA3 are not ASIC resistent ?

[kache]

lol to everyone rooting for the term "resistant" and saying asic resistant coin are the choice now.


seems like you got sold the FUD. So much that you now preach it. hahaha


looking at you verticoners , hiros , darkers , and the rest.


Darkcoin , i see it trading strong in future because of it being anonymous and not because of ASIC . Their price is much higher. it has not crashed yet. it will. Soon as the volume of miners is much higher then buyers. aka soon its going to run out of steam and new people will stop being interest. it will have no new people interested. Just wait until 3-4 more copy-pasta coins emerge that offer the same. People will move around https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=529570.msg5993851#msg5993851

Vertcoin so far has preached the "non asic" angle since day one. Not even being the first n-scrypt coin. vertcoin i see it being still alive in near future because of the user base , just like doge. But the price is too hyped. Even now, that it crashed its too high for it.

hero? well i dont even know. seems like a darkcoin copy to me. that says it all.



in my opinion i see darkcoin become more successful then vert. but they both need to crash much more before they normalize to their true value

Do you know about Darkcoin ?

1. Anonymous : BS, it is just bitcoin + coinjoin
2. ASIC resistant : BS, X11 are not ASIC resistant at all, even the Darkcoin dev said so
3. No premine : BS, Actually is instamine  13.8%. take a look at below

I looked at mining it, but it's clearly not profitable to mine it because it's been mostly premined

I will politely disagree: Darkcoin was pre-announced and fair-launched, and everybody had a chance to mine on day 1. A sizeable chunk of DRK was mined on day 1, but that's not at all the same as a premine, and to claim otherwise is BS sophistry. There is a meaningful distinction between premining and a pre-announced fair launch.

In any case, I'm sure the devs got a fair chunk of the day 1 coins, which I see as a GOOD thing because it means they are financially invested in making the coin succeed.

That aside -- if the day 1 mining rate is the only complaint you have against Darkcoin, then that's not too shabby. No coin is 100% perfect.

Regarding profitability, if you do the math taking into account the differences in X11 hashrate and the ~40% lower power draw, you'll find it's about on par with scrypt profitability, if not better.

When the coin is designed to yield a huge instamine that is exactly like a premine.

If darkcoin had had constant block size as they are now there would only been 776,525 coins. But the total coins is actually 3,829,439. That mean that of all the existing darkcoins 79,9% is instamined. And after what i have read they are going to reduce max coins to 22 million. That mean that darkcoin in reality got an instamine of 13,8%.

The fact that it is designed that way and that "everyone" could have mined it don't matter. It is designed as a scam, and a get rich quick scheme. Very good branding, but technically flawed. There is no doubt that this is a scam.

Yes, both DRK and Hiro have a huge isntamine issue:
http://www.reddit.com/r/DRKCoin/comments/21k7jt/to_all_the_windows_miners_we_will_not_reach_the/

[Kai Proctor]

IloveAnonCoin is very objective when it comes to Darkcoin.  He must support an other coin hmmm

[IloveAnonCoin]

IloveAnonCoin is very objective when it comes to Darkcoin.  He must support an other coin hmmm

Don't you see my name ?

[Kai Proctor]

IloveAnonCoin is very objective when it comes to Darkcoin.  He must support an other coin hmmm

Don't you see my name ?

You don't say ? 

[cryptowho]

lol to everyone rooting for the term "resistant" and saying asic resistant coin are the choice now.


seems like you got sold the FUD. So much that you now preach it. hahaha


looking at you verticoners , hiros , darkers , and the rest.


Darkcoin , i see it trading strong in future because of it being anonymous and not because of ASIC . Their price is much higher. it has not crashed yet. it will. Soon as the volume of miners is much higher then buyers. aka soon its going to run out of steam and new people will stop being interest. it will have no new people interested. Just wait until 3-4 more copy-pasta coins emerge that offer the same. People will move around https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=529570.msg5993851#msg5993851

Vertcoin so far has preached the "non asic" angle since day one. Not even being the first n-scrypt coin. vertcoin i see it being still alive in near future because of the user base , just like doge. But the price is too hyped. Even now, that it crashed its too high for it.

hero? well i dont even know. seems like a darkcoin copy to me. that says it all.



in my opinion i see darkcoin become more successful then vert. but they both need to crash much more before they normalize to their true value

Do you know about Darkcoin ?

1. Anonymous : BS, it is just bitcoin + coinjoin
2. ASIC resistant : BS, X11 are not ASIC resistant at all, even the Darkcoin dev said so
3. No premine : BS, Actually is instamine  13.8%. take a look at below

I looked at mining it, but it's clearly not profitable to mine it because it's been mostly premined

I will politely disagree: Darkcoin was pre-announced and fair-launched, and everybody had a chance to mine on day 1. A sizeable chunk of DRK was mined on day 1, but that's not at all the same as a premine, and to claim otherwise is BS sophistry. There is a meaningful distinction between premining and a pre-announced fair launch.

In any case, I'm sure the devs got a fair chunk of the day 1 coins, which I see as a GOOD thing because it means they are financially invested in making the coin succeed.

That aside -- if the day 1 mining rate is the only complaint you have against Darkcoin, then that's not too shabby. No coin is 100% perfect.

Regarding profitability, if you do the math taking into account the differences in X11 hashrate and the ~40% lower power draw, you'll find it's about on par with scrypt profitability, if not better.

When the coin is designed to yield a huge instamine that is exactly like a premine.

If darkcoin had had constant block size as they are now there would only been 776,525 coins. But the total coins is actually 3,829,439. That mean that of all the existing darkcoins 79,9% is instamined. And after what i have read they are going to reduce max coins to 22 million. That mean that darkcoin in reality got an instamine of 13,8%.

The fact that it is designed that way and that "everyone" could have mined it don't matter. It is designed as a scam, and a get rich quick scheme. Very good branding, but technically flawed. There is no doubt that this is a scam.

your point. just like mine is that dark coin its too pricy right now and it is not even close to what it should be.

you're also right. i should have meant a bit closer to being more anonymous then other coins.

but other then that.. we kinda agree.

maybe my post is not as clear as it is in my mind

[solid12345]

I can see in principle why some support ASICs because if you want to make serious money, then you should heavily invest in the hardware to do so, if you work in any kind of graphic, 3d or motion video industry you know investing in new equipment is a cost of doing business...

That being said though, the companies that make these ASICs are con artists. I guarantee you it is costing them very little to manufacture these chips and they are probably all sitting on palette jacks right now by the thousands yet they bullshit you with their shady "preorders" and telling you you won't receive them for months down the road. Worst, many want to be paid in Bitcoin, so you are potentially selling them 100k worth of future money for 10k today. How anyone who can whine about "scamcoins" yet support these hucksters is beyond me.

Ask yourself when have you ever preordered a videocard 6-12 months in advance? You don't because you know by then it will be outdated. Personally I wish a respectable company like AMD or Nvidia would get in the game themselves and undercut these guys.

[TodaysGandalf]

Aw Hell, I'll put my two cents worth into the mix.

ANY predefined algorithm can be performed by an ASIC.

As long as the algorithm is known ahead of time, it can be performed by an ASIC.  Some ASICs get around that rule by embedding specialized CPUs to adapt to minor changes in the logic while running, but they sacrifice speed in doing so.

I do many forms of engineering and FPGA programming is one of them.  (For those who care FPGA stands for Field Programmable Gate Array.  Clear as mud, right?)  FPGAs are "firmware" versions of integrated circuits.  They are, in a manner of speaking, reprogrammable ASICs.  An FPGA can be reprogrammed to become most any digital circuit.  One of the costs for this flexibility is speed.  Very high-end FPGAs can come within 97% of the speed of an ASIC, but they are significantly more expensive at the high speed and large logic-quantity ranges.  So, FPGAs are usually just used to prototype ASICs.  Once the "firmware" version of the code is perfected on FPGAs, it is converted into photo masks for mass producing ASICs, analogous to a photocopier

A miner hardware vendor that is an exception to this is KnC Miner.  They produce miners that are sold with the FPGAs in them rather than ASICs, for the most part.  (They may now have some products with just ASICs in them or FPGAs and ASICs.)  That is how they have gained speed to market, by skipping the ASIC chip production process.  However, their pricing reflects the additional cost of using high-end FPGAs in their products.

To say an algorithm is ASIC resistant is just a pipe dream.  There are only two things I can see that would make a cryptocurrency algorithm "ASIC resistant."

1) If the market for the coin is insignificant.  Creating ASICs is a very time and capital consuming venture.  (This is the crux of most of the constantly slipping ship dates for preordered miner hardware.  Some aspect of the ASIC did not come out as predicted and adjustments must be made to the product design to accommodate those variances.)   ASICs specialize in executing specific algorithms VERY fast.  HOWEVER, the logic is cast in stone and metal, pretty literally.  Once they are designed and set up for production, they can be churned out by the millions relatively cheaply.  The only way to justify the creation of an ASIC is if there is sufficient market to consume those millions of chips to pay back the development costs... and then make a profit.  Insufficient market, (as in the number of interested miner purchasers) no ASIC will be created.  Period.  Basic business economics.

The exception to this would be coins that, though different in some way, still use existing algorithms.  Ie. A SHA256D ASIC can be used to mine any SHA256D based coin.  The same is true for Scrypt ASICs.  Even "Bitcoin-sCrypt" will subverted by this rule eventually.  If there is enough money to be made, someone will figure out a way to get an advantage and turn a buck... er... coin.

2) If, as part of the design of the coin, the algorithm for the coin changes significantly and randomly during the life-cycle of the coin, it would be resistant to specialized hardware because the algorithms would not be fully known ahead of time.  IMHO, this "shell game" method of implementing the logic would not work well in practice, but would lend itself to CPUs and GPUs because they can have their code changed "on the fly."

Those are the only two scenarios I see that would make a coin algorithm truly "ASIC resistant."

[Hueristic]

This thread needs a bump.

There will eventually be ASICs for any mined algorithm which gains popularity. What this does is effectively act as a delay to help coins mature. It would take 8-12 months at least for asics to be developed for x11, maybe longer because it is dependent on economics. By that time those early adopter currencies with x11 will benefit from the asics, because ASICs benefit mature coins, and eventually the software technology would be developed for the next generation. There is a cycle to this. 

Nothing is ASIC proof. Nothing. Resistant means it would take a new R&D effort to develop asics, and that literally can take several months. At which time a coins can mature who are early adopters of the tech.

There is definitely a life cycle here, and one we must recognize, and the life cycle is not entirely bad.

Currently. But I think there is a chance of using true randomness within an algo to make ASICs impossible to make. It just hasn't been done yet.

It is impossible for a computer to create a truly random event.

Aw Hell, I'll put my two cents worth into the mix.

ANY predefined algorithm can be performed by an ASIC.

As long as the algorithm is known ahead of time, it can be performed by an ASIC.  Some ASICs get around that rule by embedding specialized CPUs to adapt to minor changes in the logic while running, but they sacrifice speed in doing so.

I do many forms of engineering and FPGA programming is one of them.  (For those who care FPGA stands for Field Programmable Gate Array.  Clear as mud, right?)  FPGAs are "firmware" versions of integrated circuits.  They are, in a manner of speaking, reprogrammable ASICs.  An FPGA can be reprogrammed to become most any digital circuit.  One of the costs for this flexibility is speed.  Very high-end FPGAs can come within 97% of the speed of an ASIC, but they are significantly more expensive at the high speed and large logic-quantity ranges.  So, FPGAs are usually just used to prototype ASICs.  Once the "firmware" version of the code is perfected on FPGAs, it is converted into photo masks for mass producing ASICs, analogous to a photocopier

A miner hardware vendor that is an exception to this is KnC Miner.  They produce miners that are sold with the FPGAs in them rather than ASICs, for the most part.  (They may now have some products with just ASICs in them or FPGAs and ASICs.)  That is how they have gained speed to market, by skipping the ASIC chip production process.  However, their pricing reflects the additional cost of using high-end FPGAs in their products.

To say an algorithm is ASIC resistant is just a pipe dream.  There are only two things I can see that would make a cryptocurrency algorithm "ASIC resistant."

1) If the market for the coin is insignificant.  Creating ASICs is a very time and capital consuming venture.  (This is the crux of most of the constantly slipping ship dates for preordered miner hardware.  Some aspect of the ASIC did not come out as predicted and adjustments must be made to the product design to accommodate those variances.)   ASICs specialize in executing specific algorithms VERY fast.  HOWEVER, the logic is cast in stone and metal, pretty literally.  Once they are designed and set up for production, they can be churned out by the millions relatively cheaply.  The only way to justify the creation of an ASIC is if there is sufficient market to consume those millions of chips to pay back the development costs... and then make a profit.  Insufficient market, (as in the number of interested miner purchasers) no ASIC will be created.  Period.  Basic business economics.

The exception to this would be coins that, though different in some way, still use existing algorithms.  Ie. A SHA256D ASIC can be used to mine any SHA256D based coin.  The same is true for Scrypt ASICs.  Even "Bitcoin-sCrypt" will subverted by this rule eventually.  If there is enough money to be made, someone will figure out a way to get an advantage and turn a buck... er... coin.

2) If, as part of the design of the coin, the algorithm for the coin changes significantly and randomly during the life-cycle of the coin, it would be resistant to specialized hardware because the algorithms would not be fully known ahead of time.  IMHO, this "shell game" method of implementing the logic would not work well in practice, but would lend itself to CPUs and GPUs because they can have their code changed "on the fly."

Those are the only two scenarios I see that would make a coin algorithm truly "ASIC resistant."

QFT, afa #2 Since it is impossible to create a random number on a computer and the coin is always open sauced, How could that be accomplished?

I have thought of another method but I'm not going to expose it in an open forum until the Idea has been fleshed out.

[Joe_Bauers]

Yacoin introduced SHA3 to cryptocoin world and is currently at Nf15. Rather than being ASIC resistant, I would say Yacoin is ASIC PROOF. It would require completely new technologies and concepts to change that.

[Hueristic]

Yacoin introduced SHA3 to cryptocoin world and is currently at Nf15. Rather than being ASIC resistant, I would say Yacoin is ASIC PROOF. It would require completely new technologies and concepts to change that.

It does look like N-Factor is a great weapon against ASIC's but isn't Yacoin Gpu proof now as well (not saying that's a bad thing)?

[Joe_Bauers]

Yacoin introduced SHA3 to cryptocoin world and is currently at Nf15. Rather than being ASIC resistant, I would say Yacoin is ASIC PROOF. It would require completely new technologies and concepts to change that.

It does look like N-Factor is a great weapon against ASIC's but isn't Yacoin Gpu proof now as well (not saying that's a bad thing)?

GPU mining YAC has always been a bit of an art for sure, but even at current N it is still possible. Check the ongoing dev thread for some of the latest settings for GPU.

[tromp]

Compute-bound PoWs are ASIC-friendly by nature.

Memory-bound PoWs that need more memory than fits on a single chip
would lead to ASICs that need to connect to memory modules;
whose throughput is limited by the memory interface and latency.
Such a setup would have limited performance & power advantage over
commodity hardware.