NobleCoin[NOBL] - 8% PoS | 1Yr+ | MARKETPLACE | PAY | GIFT | CHARITIES/MERCHANTS

[james6546]

^^^ Save your money and buy 10K worth of noblecoins. Then in a couple years you might be able to retire.

Yes, you are probably correct.

But, you guys that are responding to my posts saying my investment in asic miners was a waste of money are just proving my point. You are not willing to do anything that will help the future of the coin unless it will get you BTC ASAP.
That isn't how investments work. You get out what you put in, and right now Noble needs well distributed powerful miners backed by dedicated individuals that do not dump to market.
I made a concious decision to step up and do my part to help Noble get through this tough time with the hope that it'll have been worth it in years to come.
Sure I could have bought a $hit load of Nobl for the cost of the miner, but that would benefit no one but myself. That's not going to help the network, and probably cause more people to dump if someone is buying.

Rofo has stuck in there through a lot of crap and if the community isn't willing to put their necks on the line for no short term reward, we'll be going nowhere fast.

You are wrong again. Investments should bring a return, else it's a fail. If the attackers can rent asics 40X more powerful than your unit, then you fail.
Don't group everyone that disagrees with you as "not willing to do anything that will help the future of the coin unless it will get you BTC ASAP". That's just absurd.

Buying 10K worth of Noblecoin would have been a much better investment, and buying coin is always good for the coin, don't argue that point , please, because your argument that buying coin only enables dumpers is just ....ummm.... I dont have the words...

I'm still hoping that the coin will be forked to something where mining is a thing of the past. That would solve the asics issue, now and in the future. Something similar to BC. Then you guys can stabilize/de-stabilize other coins with your asics.

The problem with purely PoS coins is that people hoard them and the spread of the wealth is limited to people who mined them initially and are holding.

This is happening with BC where a few people hold the vast majority of the coins.

I am not saying that a non mining solution would not be viable, just maybe not PoS.

[1714854712]

1714854712

[1714854712]

1714854712

[1714854712]

1714854712

[1714854712]

1714854712

[bangomatic]

^^^ Save your money and buy 10K worth of noblecoins. Then in a couple years you might be able to retire.

Yes, you are probably correct.

But, you guys that are responding to my posts saying my investment in asic miners was a waste of money are just proving my point. You are not willing to do anything that will help the future of the coin unless it will get you BTC ASAP.
That isn't how investments work. You get out what you put in, and right now Noble needs well distributed powerful miners backed by dedicated individuals that do not dump to market.
I made a concious decision to step up and do my part to help Noble get through this tough time with the hope that it'll have been worth it in years to come.
Sure I could have bought a $hit load of Nobl for the cost of the miner, but that would benefit no one but myself. That's not going to help the network, and probably cause more people to dump if someone is buying.

Rofo has stuck in there through a lot of crap and if the community isn't willing to put their necks on the line for no short term reward, we'll be going nowhere fast.

You are wrong again. Investments should bring a return, else it's a fail. If the attackers can rent asics 40X more powerful than your unit, then you fail.
Don't group everyone that disagrees with you as "not willing to do anything that will help the future of the coin unless it will get you BTC ASAP". That's just absurd.

Buying 10K worth of Noblecoin would have been a much better investment, and buying coin is always good for the coin, don't argue that point , please, because your argument that buying coin only enables dumpers is just ....ummm.... I dont have the words...

I'm still hoping that the coin will be forked to something where mining is a thing of the past. That would solve the asics issue, now and in the future. Something similar to BC. Then you guys can stabilize/de-stabilize other coins with your asics.

The problem with purely PoS coins is that people hoard them and the spread of the wealth is limited to people who mined them initially and are holding.

This is happening with BC where a few people hold the vast majority of the coins.

I am not saying that a non mining solution would be viable, just maybe not PoS.

This coin has been mined fairly for several months, and the coin should be spread far and wide. The problem I have with PoS is when the coin is mined only for a couple of days.

[adam1230]

This coin has been mined fairly for several months, and the coin should be spread far and wide. The problem I have with PoS is when the coin is mined only for a couple of days.

I kind of agree with this. It would seem that we would either need to hold out until 300 MH/s ASICs are commonplace like GPUs or we need to go POS/X11. I like POS after 6 months much better than a few days. I like X11 because it currently keeps the power in the hands of GPUs.

I understand that X11 or any other algo will have ASICs eventually but think about it, LTC was able to go years without ASICs and build a huge network and merchants and value etc... So they are more than ready for the scrypt ASIC revolution. Maybe timing has a lot more to do with it then we want to admit?

[james6546]

This coin has been mined fairly for several months, and the coin should be spread far and wide. The problem I have with PoS is when the coin is mined only for a couple of days.

I kind of agree with this. It would seem that we would either need to hold out until 300 MH/s ASICs are commonplace like GPUs or we need to go POS/X11. I like POS after 6 months much better than a few days. I like X11 because it currently keeps the power in the hands of GPUs.

I understand that X11 or any other algo will have ASICs eventually but think about it, LTC was able to go years without ASICs and build a huge network and merchants and value etc... So they are more than ready for the scrypt ASIC revolution. Maybe timing has a lot more to do with it then we want to admit?

Both valid points.

Yes, I think timing has been off with ASICs for us.

[hellscabane]

I don't know if it's just me, but it doesn't seem that a lot of people have a firm grasp of what it truly means to secure a network.

If a coin switches to another algorithm, unless that algorithm is exclusively used by one coin (such as making the algorithm closed-source), then there will always be other competing coins. This inherently means dilution of total security and with it comes a greater chance of attack. Of course we can say that for sCrypt mining as well (when we take a look with what is going on right now), but the medium-term and longer-term will provide stronger security because ASICs tend to reduce overall parity in hash as well as variability. As a case example, look at the multipool scene with SHA-256 coins. Despite the fact that there are some coins with significantly less hash than Bitcoin, attacks haven't gone on because parity and variability has gone down. [There is also something to be said about the effect of weeding out "hobbyists."] Sure there are lots of cons with sticking with sCrypt at the moment, but not as many as doing an algorithm switch.

As for switching to PoS, that's just as great as a risk. Although it has been shown to be quite resilient so far, PPC (the PoS mechanism that all the clonecoins copy) remains as a PoW/PoS hybrid with checkpoints. One of the main reasons for this is that PoS hasn't been truly vetted by firm security measures. If you delve into some of the development discussion, there are already quite a few attacks that exist and have been shown to have an effect on the testnet.

Someone mentioned that it is a better investment to buy a coin rather than to mine it. Sure this might be true, but only if the investment gets that far. Although buying adds volume, it does nothing for the underlying need for a secure network. This should easily imply that getting something that will secure the network will go leaps and bounds further than just buying and waiting. Although there is a chance to realize greater profits with just buying, it also comes with significantly more risk; at least with getting miners you are both mitigating risk by adding to the security and having the potential to realize profits.

[bangomatic]

I don't know if it's just me, but it doesn't seem that a lot of people have a firm grasp of what it truly means to secure a network.

If a coin switches to another algorithm, unless that algorithm is exclusively used by one coin (such as making the algorithm closed-source), then there will always be other competing coins. This inherently means dilution of total security and with it comes a greater chance of attack. Of course we can say that for sCrypt mining as well (when we take a look with what is going on right now), but the medium-term and longer-term will provide stronger security because ASICs tend to reduce overall parity in hash as well as variability. As a case example, look at the multipool scene with SHA-256 coins. Despite the fact that there are some coins with significantly less hash than Bitcoin, attacks haven't gone on because parity and variability has gone down. [There is also something to be said about the effect of weeding out "hobbyists."] Sure there are lots of cons with sticking with sCrypt at the moment, but not as many as doing an algorithm switch.

As for switching to PoS, that's just as great as a risk. Although it has been shown to be quite resilient so far, PPC (the PoS mechanism that all the clonecoins copy) remains as a PoW/PoS hybrid with checkpoints. One of the main reasons for this is that PoS hasn't been truly vetted by firm security measures. If you delve into some of the development discussion, there are already quite a few attacks that exist and have been shown to have an effect on the testnet.

Someone mentioned that it is a better investment to buy a coin rather than to mine it. Sure this might be true, but only if the investment gets that far. Although buying adds volume, it does nothing for the underlying need for a secure network. This should easily imply that getting something that will secure the network will go leaps and bounds further than just buying and waiting. Although there is a chance to realize greater profits with just buying, it also comes with significantly more risk; at least with getting miners you are both mitigating risk by adding to the security and having the potential to realize profits.

In the current configuration the noblecoin network is not secure. If an attacker can rent a huge amount of asic hashpower at any time there is risk. I think the argument is "we will buy asics to secure the network". what I'm saying is that the asics you buy today will be useless in a couple months so you will have to continue to buy more/upgrade, etc.. The only winners are ASICs manufacturers. There will always be a bigger gun out there. Thats just my opinion on it.

[hellscabane]

I don't know if it's just me, but it doesn't seem that a lot of people have a firm grasp of what it truly means to secure a network.

If a coin switches to another algorithm, unless that algorithm is exclusively used by one coin (such as making the algorithm closed-source), then there will always be other competing coins. This inherently means dilution of total security and with it comes a greater chance of attack. Of course we can say that for sCrypt mining as well (when we take a look with what is going on right now), but the medium-term and longer-term will provide stronger security because ASICs tend to reduce overall parity in hash as well as variability. As a case example, look at the multipool scene with SHA-256 coins. Despite the fact that there are some coins with significantly less hash than Bitcoin, attacks haven't gone on because parity and variability has gone down. [There is also something to be said about the effect of weeding out "hobbyists."] Sure there are lots of cons with sticking with sCrypt at the moment, but not as many as doing an algorithm switch.

As for switching to PoS, that's just as great as a risk. Although it has been shown to be quite resilient so far, PPC (the PoS mechanism that all the clonecoins copy) remains as a PoW/PoS hybrid with checkpoints. One of the main reasons for this is that PoS hasn't been truly vetted by firm security measures. If you delve into some of the development discussion, there are already quite a few attacks that exist and have been shown to have an effect on the testnet.

Someone mentioned that it is a better investment to buy a coin rather than to mine it. Sure this might be true, but only if the investment gets that far. Although buying adds volume, it does nothing for the underlying need for a secure network. This should easily imply that getting something that will secure the network will go leaps and bounds further than just buying and waiting. Although there is a chance to realize greater profits with just buying, it also comes with significantly more risk; at least with getting miners you are both mitigating risk by adding to the security and having the potential to realize profits.

In the current configuration the noblecoin network is not secure. If an attacker can rent a huge amount of asic hashpower at any time there is risk. I think the argument is "we will buy asics to secure the network". what I'm saying is that the asics you buy today will be useless in a couple months so you will have to continue to buy more/upgrade, etc.. The only winners are ASICs manufacturers. There will always be a bigger gun out there. Thats just my opinion on it.

Fair enough. It is very true that the mitigating circumstance for Noblecoin is whether it can be one of the few coins that will garner enough hash from the upcoming sCrypt ASIC generation. And the biggest problem is that ROI budgets for ASICs are very tight. Because of that, it may end up being very hard to maintain stable hash from ASICs especially if they need to use multipools to break even. Either way, there was going to be a lot of risk; but since Noblecoin had decided to take this path, they need to stick with it as long as reasonably possible.

On a side note, I do agree, the primary winners are going to be ASIC manufacturers (with the very early adopters getting a good chunk of the winnings too). I always use the example of Lamborghini when it comes this issue.

[bangomatic]

I don't know if it's just me, but it doesn't seem that a lot of people have a firm grasp of what it truly means to secure a network.

If a coin switches to another algorithm, unless that algorithm is exclusively used by one coin (such as making the algorithm closed-source), then there will always be other competing coins. This inherently means dilution of total security and with it comes a greater chance of attack. Of course we can say that for sCrypt mining as well (when we take a look with what is going on right now), but the medium-term and longer-term will provide stronger security because ASICs tend to reduce overall parity in hash as well as variability. As a case example, look at the multipool scene with SHA-256 coins. Despite the fact that there are some coins with significantly less hash than Bitcoin, attacks haven't gone on because parity and variability has gone down. [There is also something to be said about the effect of weeding out "hobbyists."] Sure there are lots of cons with sticking with sCrypt at the moment, but not as many as doing an algorithm switch.

As for switching to PoS, that's just as great as a risk. Although it has been shown to be quite resilient so far, PPC (the PoS mechanism that all the clonecoins copy) remains as a PoW/PoS hybrid with checkpoints. One of the main reasons for this is that PoS hasn't been truly vetted by firm security measures. If you delve into some of the development discussion, there are already quite a few attacks that exist and have been shown to have an effect on the testnet.

Someone mentioned that it is a better investment to buy a coin rather than to mine it. Sure this might be true, but only if the investment gets that far. Although buying adds volume, it does nothing for the underlying need for a secure network. This should easily imply that getting something that will secure the network will go leaps and bounds further than just buying and waiting. Although there is a chance to realize greater profits with just buying, it also comes with significantly more risk; at least with getting miners you are both mitigating risk by adding to the security and having the potential to realize profits.

In the current configuration the noblecoin network is not secure. If an attacker can rent a huge amount of asic hashpower at any time there is risk. I think the argument is "we will buy asics to secure the network". what I'm saying is that the asics you buy today will be useless in a couple months so you will have to continue to buy more/upgrade, etc.. The only winners are ASICs manufacturers. There will always be a bigger gun out there. Thats just my opinion on it.

Fair enough. It is very true that the mitigating circumstance for Noblecoin is whether it can be one of the few coins that will garner enough hash from the upcoming sCrypt ASIC generation. And the biggest problem is that ROI budgets for ASICs are very tight. Because of that, it may end up being very hard to maintain stable hash from ASICs especially if they need to use multipools to break even. Either way, there was going to be a lot of risk; but since Noblecoin had decided to take this path, they need to stick with it as long as reasonably possible.

On a side note, I do agree, the primary winners are going to be ASIC manufacturers (with the very early adopters getting a good chunk of the winnings too). I always use the example of Lamborghini when it comes this issue.

Just a question...if you were able to successfully secure the network by mining with powerful asics, You would need to have a large % of the total nethash? is that correct? What % would secure the network?

[1Kb]

From what I have read, an attack to the network does not need to be 51%. The likely hood to be succesfull with above 51% is higher. So it really depends on how you want to look at a secure network.

added link: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

[kresu]

Basically, the hash is secure, when it's bigger than the hash affordable for an attacker.

In case of bitcoin, you count in hundreds of milions of $ to make an 51% attempt, in case of NOBL is much less.
Doge, Ltc - somewhere between, i think.

Many coins have security easy to breach with just few thousands of dollars of funds. Another thing is, are they purposedly attacked and how often?

[bangomatic]

From what I have read, an attack to the network does not need to be 51%. The likely hood to be succesfull with above 51% is higher. So it really depends on how you want to look at a secure network.

Ok then to make this truly secure, the 51% or higher, nethash would have to be controlled by asics owned and operated by Noblecoin... correct?

[hellscabane]

From what I have read, an attack to the network does not need to be 51%. The likely hood to be succesfull with above 51% is higher. So it really depends on how you want to look at a secure network.

Although it is called a 51% attack it is really more a >50% attack. As long as the spawning genesis has more hashes and can be extended out to form a chain (or subchain) that can be accepted by the parent, then a 51% double-spend type of attack can occur.

Fundamentally speaking, any coin that has less than 50% of all of the possible hash for a given algorithm shoulbe be considered unsecure.

[Coinler]

^^^ Save your money and buy 10K worth of noblecoins. Then in a couple years you might be able to retire.

Yes, you are probably correct.

But, you guys that are responding to my posts saying my investment in asic miners was a waste of money are just proving my point. You are not willing to do anything that will help the future of the coin unless it will get you BTC ASAP.
That isn't how investments work. You get out what you put in, and right now Noble needs well distributed powerful miners backed by dedicated individuals that do not dump to market.
I made a concious decision to step up and do my part to help Noble get through this tough time with the hope that it'll have been worth it in years to come.
Sure I could have bought a $hit load of Nobl for the cost of the miner, but that would benefit no one but myself. That's not going to help the network, and probably cause more people to dump if someone is buying.

Rofo has stuck in there through a lot of crap and if the community isn't willing to put their necks on the line for no short term reward, we'll be going nowhere fast.

i disagree to a certain degree. investment isnt about getting back what you put in. it is about getting back more than you put in. that is called efficiency. the aim here is to build a currency.. not a standard investment. a currency that just as standard financial markets are managed, should not generate more supply than demand or devalue the currency. that is what the banks did. and that is why crypto was spawned.

noblecoin deserves more media attention. and im very sure eventually it will. whether it is because demand is low or supply is high. taking steps that will increase the value of your investment isnt a bad thing. if ur a miner and holder.. you should be happy.

the multipools are an issue.. they are in no way investors. in fact they suck investment out of noblecoin. so im going to support any venture that cuts them out even if it cuts out asics. it can only help since supply will slow down allowing the market to grow and for investors to buy with more confidence.

it is very difficult to cut out multipools. there are already pools that support multiple algorithms, including scrypt n, x11 and x 13,

but none that support groestl algo

im currently mining groestl.. and let me tell you.. this is a beautiful mining experience. everyone on their gpus is getting a share including me.. heat output is down 50% as mining efficiency is increased superbly with this algorithm. i can barely hear my fans. no multipools or asics can work with groestl.

again i cannot reiterate enough how enjoyable this mining experience is atm.

groestl network is currently at 7gh.. ALL GPUS. that's how many gpus there are out there waiting for a coin to mine.

[kresu]

Yeah I like groestl. It had a 3rd place as candidate for SHA-3 (along with Keccak).

[1Kb]

From what I have read, an attack to the network does not need to be 51%. The likely hood to be succesfull with above 51% is higher. So it really depends on how you want to look at a secure network.

Although it is called a 51% attack it is really more a >50% attack. As long as the spawning genesis has more hashes and can be extended out to form a chain (or subchain) that can be accepted by the parent, then a 51% double-spend type of attack can occur.

Fundamentally speaking, any coin that has less than 50% of all of the possible hash for a given algorithm shoulbe be considered unsecure.

Well theoratically an attack can also be done with 1% of the hashrate. But as it is scaled logorithicallly, the chances of success at 1% are near to zero. So the higher the hashrate, the more likely the attack will be succesfull. As for being practical, once above 51% it is more likely to have a 6 deep confirmation.

[bangomatic]

From what I have read, an attack to the network does not need to be 51%. The likely hood to be succesfull with above 51% is higher. So it really depends on how you want to look at a secure network.

Ok then to make this truly secure, the 51% or higher, nethash would have to be controlled by asics owned and operated by Noblecoin... correct?

You don't have to answer.
The point I'm getting at is the asics mining equipment WOULD have to be owned and operated by Noblecoin.

If Noblecoin is mining >51% of all the coins, then they would have to sell the coins to support a continual upgrade cycle to insure they maintain >51%.

Just seems like a lot of time, money, headache invested just to stay ahead of the asics game, not to mention the community would demand accountability for the mined coins just like the pre-mine coins.

[Coinler]

Yeah I like groestl. It had a 3rd place as candidate for SHA-3 (along with Keccak).

it's the new hot thing. i say we dont wait to see it flourish. every coin that has flourished was allowed to flourish on the supply of gpus alone. asics have proven their greed. and multipool are heartless. we have the knight program.. which if we switch to groestl will get a new a mission.. reconnaisance lol. and we may not have a very large window. eventually other scrypt coins are going to realize they have to do something to at least mitigate the abuse of multipool dumps as soon as the coin begins to rise. with an non-multipool algo.. the price can rise simply because noone mined too much of market share making it near valueless to them while of much more value to those who could only get a few, limiting the temptation to greed to cashout all their stock at prices so low noone else is able to sell until theyre done suppressing the market.

i really hope Rofo will go with groestl.. or maybe he will do his own algo. could be interesting. groestl is definitely successful not only because it is anti asic/multipool but because it is an enhancement on x11/x13 algos which are now compromised by asics. people want it especially with the summer heat it would be good to run at cooler temps not just for the electricity bill but the environment as well.

[hellscabane]

From what I have read, an attack to the network does not need to be 51%. The likely hood to be succesfull with above 51% is higher. So it really depends on how you want to look at a secure network.

Ok then to make this truly secure, the 51% or higher, nethash would have to be controlled by asics owned and operated by Noblecoin... correct?

You don't have to answer.
The point I'm getting at is the asics mining equipment WOULD have to be owned and operated by Noblecoin.

If Noblecoin is mining >51% of all the coins, then they would have to sell the coins to support a continual upgrade cycle to insure they maintain >51%.

Just seems like a lot of time, money, headache invested just to stay ahead of the asics game, not to mention the community would demand accountability for the mined coins just like the pre-mine coins.

I apologize if you felt like I ignored this question. But yes, the only sCrypt coin that can reasonably do this is Litecoin. Other sCrypt coins can exist, but they either have to have a substantive share of hash rate to make attacks nontrivial (kinda like the 72/12.5/1.5 spilt between LTC/DOGE/WDC) or have to be merge-mined under a parent chain (which would most likely have to be LTC). Reasonably speaking, we can state that non-triviality occurs at a few percent of total hash rate (the point at which it costs "significant" resources to attack).

As for continuing the cycle, yes, either funds would need to be reallocated or external financing would need to continuously flow in. But this sort of issue is not only staying ahead of the ASIC "game" but also towards making a secure ledger.

When you really think about it, the most PoW coins that we "should" have lies at about 3 times the number of non-intersecting algorithms (or about 20 coins at the moment) which is way less than the number of substantive competing coins out there.

[Coinler]

This coin has been mined fairly for several months, and the coin should be spread far and wide. The problem I have with PoS is when the coin is mined only for a couple of days.

I kind of agree with this. It would seem that we would either need to hold out until 300 MH/s ASICs are commonplace like GPUs or we need to go POS/X11. I like POS after 6 months much better than a few days. I like X11 because it currently keeps the power in the hands of GPUs.

I understand that X11 or any other algo will have ASICs eventually but think about it, LTC was able to go years without ASICs and build a huge network and merchants and value etc... So they are more than ready for the scrypt ASIC revolution. Maybe timing has a lot more to do with it then we want to admit?

X11 and x13 are both already compromised by chinese asics.. groestl is only haven atm im aware of that is peacefully successful. all the asic owners get pissed about groestl algo.

[hellscabane]

Yeah I like groestl. It had a 3rd place as candidate for SHA-3 (along with Keccak).

it's the new hot thing. i say we dont wait to see it flourish. every coin that has flourished was allowed to flourish on the supply of gpus alone. asics have proven their greed. and multipool are heartless. we have the knight program.. which if we switch to groestl will get a new a mission.. reconnaisance lol. and we may not have a very large window. eventually other scrypt coins are going to realize they have to do something to at least mitigate the abuse of multipool dumps as soon as the coin begins to rise. with an non-multipool algo.. the price can rise simply because noone mined too much of market share making it near valueless to them while of much more value to those who could only get a few, limiting the temptation to greed to cashout all their stock at prices so low noone else is able to sell until theyre done suppressing the market.

i really hope Rofo will go with groestl.. or maybe he will do his own algo. could be interesting. groestl is definitely successful not only because it is anti asic/multipool but because it is an enhancement on x11/x13 algos which are now compromised by asics. people want it especially with the summer heat it would be good to run at cooler temps not just for the electricity bill but the environment as well.

The truth is that multipools are always going to exist unless a coin has a crushing majority (in terms of market penetration and hashrate). Remember, there have been SHA-256 and sCrypt multipools for a quite a while already. I think the multipool abuse is more of a systemic issue rather than an algorithm issue. People want to convert coins into what is easily usable (i.e. greed to a certain extent); that's why so many people dump for BTC and/or fiat.

I'm not sure how you can substantively make this conclusion, but how is Groestl directly an enhancement? The only "enhancement" of these algorithms is the cooler temperatures (but even this is severely negligible). ASICs still win the battle in regards to electricity efficiency.