..... but also potentially can't be bricked by a PoW change such as Monero's recent one.
what do the people on here who know more than me think?
That was on the developer's sides, and only Dev with various consideration may do it, nor people power can affect Dev decision.
Overreacted to this ASICs issue/fact is worthless. Why don't you give your focus to what you can full control over it?
e.g.I like this, Ignoring what you can't control, do what you have control over it.
We will soon be seeing (by several individuals) the release of free bitstreams to build DIY-FPGA mining rigs with higher hash rates than GPU's, but the GPU's will still be viable. Monero has the right idea, to fork away from ASIC's, although they can never fork away from FPGA's since FPGA's can be rapidly modified in software just like GPU's. The FPGA's (once widely adopted) make ASIC development less profitable. Since ASIC's have a 100x advantage over GPU's and only a 1.5 to 7x advantage over FPGA's, if a coin's hash rate is owned by DIY-FPGA miners, the profit from making an ASIC will be sketchy. That, combined with coin owners constantly forking their algorithms away from ASIC's, is one method.
There is a better method that I will be pushing for at the same time that I release my own FPGA bitstreams, and that is for all coins to adopt dynamically changing algorithms like Timetravel10, X16R, X16S, X11Evo. These can be mined by FPGA's and GPU's, but no ASIC can ever beat an FPGA on those algorithms, making them the only real 'ASIC-Proof' algorithms invented thus far. The technical details of why that is the case are complicated.
If coins adopted those algorithms, they would never have to go through the trouble of 'forking' since no ASIC can beat a DIY-FPGA on those algorithms anyway.
