"ASIC- Proof"

[coinerd]

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.

[Fuserleer]

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.

[anderl]

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.

I"m just happy that the current generation of cryptos are abacus resistant.  Otherwise we would be doomed.

[coinerd]

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.

[tacotime]

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.

[coinerd]

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.

[tacotime]

Not really.  Naked, actual, unlidded ASICs look like this.  Beautiful, no?

[weav]

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.

+1

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 

[coinerd]

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.

[coinerd]

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.

[champbronc2]

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.

[Boxman90]

That black box is not an ASIC, it's an ASIC Miner.

That means a miner filled with ASICS.

BOOM.

/thead.

[coinerd]

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.

[bazzip]

....."and say it's going to cost 5-7m (USD) to get your ASICs out of the FAB" .... Not true if the DEV was done in China.

[ohhaithere]

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.

[coinerd]

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.

[weav]

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.

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 backed by data.

[ohhaithere]

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.

If ever single feature of the i7 were used, every FPU, every ALU, etc are all used in their most efficient way possible for the i7, then the only way you could beat it with a "mining ASIC" would be to just make more i7's. You could make one twice as powerful, but it'd require twice the silicon, twice the cost, twice the power, etc.

General use CPU's are so easy to beat for stuff like bitcoin, because the algorithm isn't optimized at the hardware level for those general CPU chips. If it is, then you can't really do much better.

Such an algorithm would be spectacularly hard to write, but I don't see why the possibility should be discredited.

I apologize if you're not a native english speaker and the technical aspects are hard to understand.

[lazydna]

the hatorade for litecoins is coming.
I guess we can thank gox for pulling litecoin in the spotlight.

[coinerd]

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.