[ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency

[CHAOSiTEC]

btw:

selling IBM BladeCenter with 15x HS21 2x 5650 Xeon Quadcore CPUs  (13x 8 GB, 1x4GB, 1x0GB ram) + 5x 72.6 GB SAS HDs -

price: 5.039.45 U.S. dollars (32500 SEK) pickup in person only (weight 158kg (316 pounds)) or the current rate in bitcoins or darkcoins

city: Gothenburg, Sweden

:-p

works perfectly...

Why not run some master nodes?

that would be nice, but until me and my wife buy a house, there is no room for it to run...

besides 117*4*24*30 = 336960 / 100 = 3369.60 SEK = 522.49 US dollars per month in electricity :-p

[1714156986]

1714156986

[1714156986]

1714156986

[forzendiablo]

coin rocks but price sucks madly!

[fishingisfun]

btw:

selling IBM BladeCenter with 15x HS21 2x 5650 Xeon Quadcore CPUs  (13x 8 GB, 1x4GB, 1x0GB ram) + 5x 72.6 GB SAS HDs -

price: 5.039.45 U.S. dollars (32500 SEK) pickup in person only (weight 158kg (316 pounds)) or the current rate in bitcoins or darkcoins

city: Gothenburg, Sweden

:-p

works perfectly...

Why not run some master nodes?

Overkill. Don't need that kinda power.

Good luck with your next project(s) CHAOSiTEC! I enjoyed mining at your pool. Ymer is still holding a grudge against you after you caught him cheating.

[Propulsion]

Anyone speak Chinese?

Seems like China wants to set up a MPOS pool for China.

https://www.darkcointalk.org/threads/help%EF%BC%81%E4%BD%A0%E5%A5%BD%E6%88%91%E6%9D%A5%E8%87%AA%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD.201/#post-1340

Getting China in the know is pretty important.

EDIT: and I quote him here

We have more than 1000 people, like darkcoin, because the darkcoin energy saving, moreadvanced technology
thank you Very much！

1000 people that's great!

Why they dont use p2pool 

They really should!

[albertdros]

some massive botnet on this at coinmining.pl ? Saw a 1.3m hashing power hash farm on there. Crazy....

[coins101]

~1,000 drk a day. Man they are rich already.

[sippsnapp]

~1,000 drk a day. Man they are rich already.

yep, botmining is lucrative but in law terms its privacy intrusion and energy theft ^^.

[coins101]

Any views on Charlie Lee, founder of Litecoin, on X11 being less secure than scrypt?

His comment:
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18166.msg153436#msg153436

The back story to the comment:

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18166.msg152706#msg152706

X11 is Far Worse
X11 suffers from the problems stemming from increased propagation latency and slow verification, and adds even worse susceptibility to ASIC advantage.  It is a mere mishmash of 11 separate algorithms that are now GPU mineable (according to Darkcoin’s homepage).  Anything GPU mineable can be implemented in custom hardware.  To make matters worse, ASIC’s could even have a major speedup advantage over GPU’s.   adam3mus said, “it does seem likely that eg if the unused space due to heat can be filled with the other hashes, then it can all be pipelined together and no slowdown.  the only cost is replicating different hash functions which doesnt seem particularly hard”

So a switch to X11 only delays the inevitable.  Switching the hash to X11 would only spite the current manufacturers while ultimately failing in the goal of preventing ASIC’s later.  It gets even worse.  If the cost of entry for a particular PoW is very high by design, that increases the chance of fewer competing manufacturers entering a market.  This is the worst possible outcome for any Bitcoin-like network that relies upon large quantities of greedy miners to outdo each other to maintain network security.

The quoted adam3mus is a brain on legs. He knows far too much about hashing, I think he invented hashcash wash was used to make bitcoin feasible. He does, however, suffer from alt-coin phobia.

[Kai Proctor]

some massive botnet on this at coinmining.pl ? Saw a 1.3m hashing power hash farm on there. Crazy....

Some farm owners have already jumped ship from scrypt to Darkcoin. The network hash grows everyday.  

[haggis]

If every prominent coin would switch its hash algo right before the first batch of ASICs get delivered repeatedly at each ASIC generation, people would stop buying ASICs as they know they will be worthless. So it's only important that there is currently no ASIC available and that you can implement other algorithms once they are.
This is the way to beat ASICs because their development is very expensive and the companys only get a ROI when they can sell them.

[blajde]

If every prominent coin would switch its hash algo right before the first batch of ASICs get delivered repeatedly at each ASIC generation, people would stop buying ASICs as they know they will be worthless. So it's only important that there is currently no ASIC available and that you can implement other algorithms once they are.
This is the way to beat ASICs because their development is very expensive and the companys only get a ROI when they can sell them.

Well they can sell on preorder so it means they have to switch algo before. People would still buy in the end

[Kai Proctor]

If every prominent coin would switch its hash algo right before the first batch of ASICs get delivered repeatedly at each ASIC generation, people would stop buying ASICs as they know they will be worthless. So it's only important that there is currently no ASIC available and that you can implement other algorithms once they are.
This is the way to beat ASICs because their development is very expensive and the companys only get a ROI when they can sell them.

Well they can sell on preorder so it means they have to switch algo before. People would still buy in the end

Randomly change the hash functions order in X11 maybe.

[goin2mars]

If every prominent coin would switch its hash algo right before the first batch of ASICs get delivered repeatedly at each ASIC generation, people would stop buying ASICs as they know they will be worthless. So it's only important that there is currently no ASIC available and that you can implement other algorithms once they are.
This is the way to beat ASICs because their development is very expensive and the companys only get a ROI when they can sell them.

Well they can sell on preorder so it means they have to switch algo before. People would still buy in the end

Randomly change the hash functions order in X11 maybe.

I don't have an exact understanding of where this comes up . . but I've read that Quark already suffers from this in that the random algo still must be selected in a way that can be figured out by the GPU.

By doing this, they implement an if/else statement that chooses one algo or the other depending on the previous hashes result @ stage 2, 5 and 7 . . which is still something that can be implemented in an ASIC. So it ends up being more pseudo-random as far as an ASIC implementation goes.

Unless you mean save a random swap in the future that's updated through a hard fork?

Anyone know better . . or if I'm way off? I asked the guy for an exact explanation but he didn't respond.

[Kai Proctor]

Any views on Charlie Lee, founder of Litecoin, on X11 being less secure than scrypt?

His comment:
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18166.msg153436#msg153436

The back story to the comment:

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18166.msg152706#msg152706

X11 is Far Worse
X11 suffers from the problems stemming from increased propagation latency and slow verification, and adds even worse susceptibility to ASIC advantage.  It is a mere mishmash of 11 separate algorithms that are now GPU mineable (according to Darkcoin’s homepage).  Anything GPU mineable can be implemented in custom hardware.  To make matters worse, ASIC’s could even have a major speedup advantage over GPU’s.   adam3mus said, “it does seem likely that eg if the unused space due to heat can be filled with the other hashes, then it can all be pipelined together and no slowdown.  the only cost is replicating different hash functions which doesnt seem particularly hard”

So a switch to X11 only delays the inevitable.  Switching the hash to X11 would only spite the current manufacturers while ultimately failing in the goal of preventing ASIC’s later.  It gets even worse.  If the cost of entry for a particular PoW is very high by design, that increases the chance of fewer competing manufacturers entering a market.  This is the worst possible outcome for any Bitcoin-like network that relies upon large quantities of greedy miners to outdo each other to maintain network security.

The quoted adam3mus is a brain on legs. He knows far too much about hashing, I think he invented hashcash wash was used to make bitcoin feasible. He does, however, suffer from alt-coin phobia.

I did read that but his opinion is obviously biased, he don't want LTC to switch to X11, so I wouldn't expect to read even one positive thing from him about it.

[Kai Proctor]

If every prominent coin would switch its hash algo right before the first batch of ASICs get delivered repeatedly at each ASIC generation, people would stop buying ASICs as they know they will be worthless. So it's only important that there is currently no ASIC available and that you can implement other algorithms once they are.
This is the way to beat ASICs because their development is very expensive and the companys only get a ROI when they can sell them.

Well they can sell on preorder so it means they have to switch algo before. People would still buy in the end

Randomly change the hash functions order in X11 maybe.

I don't have an exact understanding of where this comes up . . but I've read that Quark already suffers from this in that the random algo still must be selected in a way that can be figured out by the GPU.

By doing this, they implement an if/else statement that chooses one algo or the other depending on the previous hashes result @ stage 2, 5 and 7 . . which is still something that can be implemented in an ASIC. So it ends up being more pseudo-random as far as an ASIC implementation goes.

Unless you mean save a random swap in the future that's updated through a hard fork?

Anyone know better . . or if I'm way off? I asked the guy for an exact explanation but he didn't respond.

Yes for a hard fork once in a while. (And sorry bad quote)

[goin2mars]

If every prominent coin would switch its hash algo right before the first batch of ASICs get delivered repeatedly at each ASIC generation, people would stop buying ASICs as they know they will be worthless. So it's only important that there is currently no ASIC available and that you can implement other algorithms once they are.
This is the way to beat ASICs because their development is very expensive and the companys only get a ROI when they can sell them.

Well they can sell on preorder so it means they have to switch algo before. People would still buy in the end

Randomly change the hash functions order in X11 maybe.

I don't have an exact understanding of where this comes up . . but I've read that Quark already suffers from this in that the random algo still must be selected in a way that can be figured out by the GPU.

By doing this, they implement an if/else statement that chooses one algo or the other depending on the previous hashes result @ stage 2, 5 and 7 . . which is still something that can be implemented in an ASIC. So it ends up being more pseudo-random as far as an ASIC implementation goes.

Unless you mean save a random swap in the future that's updated through a hard fork?

Anyone know better . . or if I'm way off? I asked the guy for an exact explanation but he didn't respond.

Yes for a hard fork once in a while. (And sorry bad quote)

Got it. It's definitely an option, but doing this puts us in the same boat as Litecoin and Vertcoin. The stance on Litecoin was that it was ASIC proof, and now ASICs are coming. The result is that they have an incredibly divided community that can't settle on whether they should change algo's or stick with what they have. A lot more comes into play when you have tens of thousands of people instead of the 10k wallets we have today.

The same will undoubtedly happen with Vertcoin when it comes time to change an n-factor schedule.

Hard forking to a new algo stops ASICs . . but divides your community for a million other different reasons. The biggest thing they have going for them is that Scrypt uses an immense amount of memory. For litecoin to switch to an algorithm that, as far as I know, isn't memory hard . . then they only thing stopping ASICs is that someone hasn't designed them yet.

Things that will keep this coin around if ASICs come for it are DarkSend, and whatever Evan and others comes up with.

[coastermonger]

Any views on Charlie Lee, founder of Litecoin, on X11 being less secure than scrypt?

His comment:
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18166.msg153436#msg153436

Charlie Lee isn't saying X11 is less secure that scrypt, he's saying that switching his scrypt coin over to the X11 algo would temporarily make it resistant to ASICs again, which would lower the total network hashrate available.  In his mind, ASICs are still offering the ability to add more hashpower to secure the network, and it's fairly inevitable that they will come aboard anyway.

It would be a mistake to think that X11 (or any hashing algo) is immune from ASICs.  It's just temporarily raised the bar higher and it allows a fairer distribution because the ASICs for it don't exist yet.  

Eventually if the mining profitability climbs, then we should be glad to see ASIC development on the horizon.  Hopefully by then the companies making these types of specialty mining products will have ironed out their problems and have a more established reputation.  

[meebs]

Is it still profitable to mine drk? I did the following calculation:

2.4 MH in scrypt ~ 6MH in X11

6MH give you about 5drk/day (according to suchpool) which are worth 0.06BTC. That's a third of what I would get with any scrypt multipool.
Even if power consumption really halves it's still less profitable.

Or did I miss something?

something else to consider is that this coin's main functionality is still not fully released.

Also.. ASICS have not completely taken over Scrypt yet.. once they do.. SOMETHING is going to happen with all those people having GPU's that aren't profitable anymore. A decent possiblity is that a lot more people are going to discover coins like Dark, Hiro, Vert etc.

[tifozi]

And Charlie is correct. ASICs can and will be built for x11 if Darkcoin or other x11 coins merit ASIC.

However there is one fundamental difference with respect to the approach for it. Evan is on record that he wants Darkcoin to follow the Bitcoin lifecycle of a good period of mining with household computing and then ASICs to strengthen and secure the network down the road.

The whole selling point of Litecoin was to be the ASIC resistant alternative to Bitcoin. That and increased rewards, reduced transaction times with ASIC resistance being the focus to rally the mining troops who couldn't compete with BTC FPGAs and ASICs. Given the nature of the business, I can see why they are having to embrace it though. They could have adopted x11 if they wanted to delay or really be anti-ASIC, but there is nothing like the power of money. In an effort to push the "silver alternative to bitcoin", they have to go big otherwise it is struggling to go anywhere.

[goin2mars]

Any views on Charlie Lee, founder of Litecoin, on X11 being less secure than scrypt?

His comment:
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18166.msg153436#msg153436

Charlie Lee isn't saying X11 is less secure that scrypt, he's saying that switching his scrypt coin over to the X11 algo would temporarily make it resistant to ASICs again, which would lower the total network hashrate available.  In his mind, ASICs are still offering the ability to add more hashpower to secure the network, and it's fairly inevitable that they will come aboard anyway.

It would be a mistake to think that X11 (or any hashing algo) is immune from ASICs.  It's just temporarily raised the bar higher and it allows a fairer distribution because the ASICs for it don't exist yet.  

Eventually if the mining profitability climbs, then we should be glad to see ASIC development on the horizon.  Hopefully by then the companies making these types of specialty mining products will have ironed out their problems and have a more established reputation.  

What's especially scary about this is that it leads me to think that once ASIC's are up and hashing an algorithm . . the only thing keeping the demand up is that the currency is still valuable . . not that millions of people can still mine and effectively support its blockchain and end up with more than a satoshi.

If Bitcoin were to go to $20 tomorrow and almost everyone abandoned it . . you could still keep your ASIC's on it to keep the network up and running. In this sense . . you're coercing people to see more value where there is less (assuming you are placing the fundamental reason for its existence - decentralized internet currency - your top priority). Without that . . I could just use paypal. Unless that coin were to offer something incredible -- like anonymity -- there are other, more established alternatives.

Fortunately, the Bitcoin team is quite innovative, adaptive and it has a lot of other things going for it . . but through my eyes the coin has become centralized and easier to manipulate once it's out of the hands of 90% of the people that want to use it. So, this is why I'm saying that other innovations within the coin become more prominent as ASICs come to dominate.

Bitcoin, for one, has the effect of opening the world to cryptocurrency. Nobody else can claim that as loudly. Litecoin had the effect of being the first coin (with real value) that could always be in your control . . but this claim is being destroyed by ASICs. Where that ends up I guess we'll see in the coming months. If the coin gets a lot of value . . then clearly most people are willing to let things like losing decentralization slide (example being bitcoin).