Bitcoin is Dead

[fxj]

Scrypt doesn't use a massive amount of RAM unless you consider 128KB (yes Kilobytes not Megabytes or Gigabytes) a "massive amount".

Even full strength scrypt doesn't use "massive" amounts just enough that CPU with their significant cache are better optimized than other choices.  The scrypt used in litecoin is significantly crippled.  The low security (realtime) settings for Scrypt recommend by the author are 2^14, 8, 1 and the high security settings 2^20, 8,1.  Litecoin uses 2^10, 1, 1 making it roughly 100x less memory intensive then real time scrypt recommendations and ~8,000x less memory intensive than high security scrypt recommendations.

Thanks for pointing this out. So are you suggesting that scrypt based coins with the current design are - at least in theory - more or less equally susceptible to the ASIC technology as SHA256 coins? And if so, wouldnt it be "easy" to just ramp up the scrypt security settings in order to keep ASICs effectively at bay, or would that cause other complications?

[jackjack]

Scrypt doesn't use a massive amount of RAM unless you consider 128KB (yes Kilobytes not Megabytes or Gigabytes) a "massive amount".

Even full strength scrypt doesn't use "massive" amounts just enough that CPU with their significant cache are better optimized than other choices.  The scrypt used in litecoin is significantly crippled.  The low security (realtime) settings for Scrypt recommend by the author are 2^14, 8, 1 and the high security settings 2^20, 8,1.  Litecoin uses 2^10, 1, 1 making it roughly 100x less memory intensive then real time scrypt recommendations and ~8,000x less memory intensive than high security scrypt recommendations.

Thanks for pointing this out. So are you suggesting that scrypt based coins with the current design are - at least in theory - more or less equally susceptible to the ASIC technology as SHA256 coins? And if so, wouldnt it be "easy" to just ramp up the scrypt security settings in order to keep ASICs effectively at bay, or would that cause other complications?

Everything is ASICable...
It just requires enough incentive to be profitable

[fxj]

Everything is ASICable...
It just requires enough incentive to be profitable

DeathAndTaxes is correct, 128k per thread is not very much as such.

And to answer my follow-up question myself, increasing scrypt security would of course make it more difficult for everyone (i e current mining gear, not only ASICs), so not a good idea if the point is to prolong GPU mining as a feasible alternative.

But returning to the initial claim of this thread (as I interpreted it) - I still wouldn't say that ASICs for BTC and ASICs for scrypt based coins means the same thing. I may need to do the math, but shooting from the hip I don't think that a "scrypt ASIC" could turn things over the way BTC ASICs do, the reason for that view still being the memory intensive processes as per the scrypt design (be it with a downsized version of the security settings).

So it is exactly the improved profitability of a scrypt coin ASIC that I doubt...

[smoothie]

"Bitcoin is dead" being claimed is a sign of life given it is still being discussed.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Scrypt doesn't use a massive amount of RAM unless you consider 128KB (yes Kilobytes not Megabytes or Gigabytes) a "massive amount".

Even full strength scrypt doesn't use "massive" amounts just enough that CPU with their significant cache are better optimized than other choices.  The scrypt used in litecoin is significantly crippled.  The low security (realtime) settings for Scrypt recommend by the author are 2^14, 8, 1 and the high security settings 2^20, 8,1.  Litecoin uses 2^10, 1, 1 making it roughly 100x less memory intensive then real time scrypt recommendations and ~8,000x less memory intensive than high security scrypt recommendations.

Thanks for pointing this out. So are you suggesting that scrypt based coins with the current design are - at least in theory - more or less equally susceptible to the ASIC technology as SHA256 coins? And if so, wouldnt it be "easy" to just ramp up the scrypt security settings in order to keep ASICs effectively at bay, or would that cause other complications?

ASICs to execute Scrypt POW will be higher cost both in terms of $ and energy thus the performance gains will be lower than the difference between GPU and ASICs executing SHA-256.  It is unlikely you can just "ramp up" the paremters of the POW as that would be a hard fork.  For example someone could hard fork Bitcoin at a certain block and require Scrypt to be used for all future blocks.  It is just a change of a dozen or so lines of code.  Technically it is a trivial change.  Getting a consensus to agree to it sufficient to kill off the original fork is a whole different story.

[clogic555]

I think ASIC miners will have an effect on the Bitcoin economy just not sure if it will be bad or just like the move from CPU's to GPU's. I do think that alt coins such as Litecoin will play a part in the future of crypto-currency.

At the end of the day this is one massive experiment and is still too young to predict what will happen, anyone that says that they know is a liar.

We should be trying to think about what we do know and how that could effect Bitcoin, like the future of the internet. Cisco predicts that around 50 billion devices will be connected to the internet by 2020 (over the around 8.7 billion of 2013). This will help Bitcoin/crypto-currency's get into mainstream because billions of people will be using the internet for purchasing products/services and with such a large number of people using the internet, digital currency would look more attractive to mainstream users/business owners to use over conventional USD because of low transaction fee's, anonymity etc (especially with LTC faster transaction times) .

Bottom line is if the internet is going to get as big as Cisco predicts it is then I see a bright future for crypto-currencies in general.

[morapick013]

lol your wrong on so many things.

[jnagyjr]

lol your wrong on so many things.

do you have anything to back up your assertion? "lol your wrong on so many things" just doesn't cut it.

[clogic555]

lol your wrong on so many things.

I'm not trying to say I'm right, I'm simply giving my opinion. Are you saying that the rapid expansion of the internet will not help mainstream use of digital currency's?

As every decade passes more people are using the internet and the more digital this world is becoming. I guess one thing that would help is making it as easy as possible to buy Bitcoins/Alt currencies for computer illiterate people that just want to buy them and spend them on products.

It would be more useful explaining to me why you think I'm wrong so everyone can read instead of just telling me I am.

[DrHaribo]

Bitcoin is dead? I wish someone had told me sooner.

[freedomno1]

Bitcoin is dead? I wish someone had told me sooner.

He-he imagines a Satoshi revival XD

[Gary Gigax]

Bitcoin is dead? I wish someone had told me sooner.

He-he imagines a Satoshi revival XD

have you seen h.i.m.? =) jedicoin coming soon!!! LOL

[dubiousfrog]

A drop in price is neither positive or negative, it is just what it is. Also to say that the price has "dropped" is interesting when at one point Bitcoins were valued at 50 cents.

Perspective...

[pallokala]

Well mining is not the only thing about Bitcoin. * I've even hear rumors on the internets that it's anonymous currency. *ENDSARCASM*

[BitCoinBD]

Totally agree with you.

[antihero_929]

the fact that bitcoin can rely on asics is an advantage; asics have high per watt processing power which dramatically lowers the cost of maintaing the bitcoin network. In two identical economies which used either bitcoins or litecoins, the bitcoin network would consume a much smaller fraction of the economy to maintain

[ILoveCrypto]

It's not dead yet. It's stable at $60 to $70 and taking some rest. After 7 days rest it will start climbing again.

[fumble]

I agree but its not dead yet.  ASICMINER is in it for the money.  They do not care about bitcoin's future. Otherwise they should NOT be mining and just sell hardware.  They could limit the amount of GHs per order so 1 person cant order several THs.  This would at least slow down the centralization somewhat.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I agree but its not dead yet.  ASICMINER is in it for the money.  They do not care about bitcoin's future. Otherwise they should NOT be mining and just sell hardware.  They could limit the amount of GHs per order so 1 person cant order several THs.  This would at least slow down the centralization somewhat.

Bitcoin doesn't need ASICMiner to "care about Bitcoin's future".  Can you imagine how horribly fragile (and ultimately doomed to failure) a system would be if it required all actors to be altruistic?  Bitcoin just needs ASICMiner to be economically rational and as a for profit venture it is.

[jnagyjr]

I agree but its not dead yet.  ASICMINER is in it for the money.  They do not care about bitcoin's future. Otherwise they should NOT be mining and just sell hardware.  They could limit the amount of GHs per order so 1 person cant order several THs.  This would at least slow down the centralization somewhat.

Bitcoin doesn't need ASICMiner to "care about Bitcoin's future".  Can you imagine how horribly fragile (and ultimately doomed to failure) a system would be if it required all actors to be altruistic?  Bitcoin just needs ASICMiner to be economically rational and as a for profit venture it is.

Completely 100% agree.