[ANN] Grin | PoW Mining | Electronic transactions for all. Community driven.

[Hueristic]

@Hueristic. I do not know. What were the reasons for skipping the 4th one. It might be useless?

Apparently it was being discussed as being overkill and the funds might be better served elsewhere but it ended up being done.

All 4 Audits of RandomX completed, now we shall see if the network stays Asic free or not. IIRC the upgrade block should kick in about Nov 30th.

https://ostif.org/four-audits-of-randomx-for-monero-and-arweave-have-been-completed-results/

[Texacha]

now we shall see if the network stays Asic free or not.

"Asics, asics, asics, asics...."
And what about botnets on CPU mined coins?

[plast555]

This coin is very similar to Beam. The same technology, often their price should be synchronous. Beam is already on Binance. Not waiting, but preparing.

Which  do you prefer, beam or grin?
[/quote]

There are some differences between Grin and Beam.
The first Mimblewimble technology was invented by Grin. Besides, Grin doesn't have a management team. Most of the employees are volunteers. Beam is led by a team.
I think a project called Epiccash recently created a project using mimblewimble technology, I think it's worth a look.

[miner987]

Anyone know how to validate GRIN address programmatically? Preferably in PHP? 

[bbc.reporter]

@plast555. I reckon that its monetary policy is making the biggest difference on how Grin is taking the change in coin distribution and adoption.

Beam is after bitcoin's moon math, while Grin is taking it in another direction. An infinite supply might make it sustainable for miners and more stable for the economy accepting Grin, assuming that it is widely adopted.

[Hueristic]

now we shall see if the network stays Asic free or not.

"Asics, asics, asics, asics...."
And what about botnets on CPU mined coins?

Who cares about botnets?

They don't cause centralization.

[Viper1]

They don't cause centralization.

Really? So you think that one person/group controlling 1000s of mining machines where they can achieve more than half the hash rate isn't centralization?

[Hueristic]

They don't cause centralization.

Really? So you think that one person/group controlling 1000s of mining machines where they can achieve more than half the hash rate isn't centralization?

nope.

[Viper1]

They don't cause centralization.

Really? So you think that one person/group controlling 1000s of mining machines where they can achieve more than half the hash rate isn't centralization?

nope.

I see.. Well either you're not all that bright since that's exactly why Satoshi designed what he did, or you have an ulterior motive for spreading that fallacy. Either way, not like it really matters since it's all going to end up being centralized so good luck to you.

[RivAngE]

They don't cause centralization.

Really? So you think that one person/group controlling 1000s of mining machines where they can achieve more than half the hash rate isn't centralization?

nope.

I see.. Well either you're not all that bright since that's exactly why Satoshi designed what he did, or you have an ulterior motive for spreading that fallacy. Either way, not like it really matters since it's all going to end up being centralized so good luck to you.

What is that difference between 1000s of mining ASICs, 10000 of mining GPUs and 5 people controlling half of the coins in a PoS system?

For as long as there are poor and rich people, centralizion will keep occurring in one form on another.

[SatoNatomato]

They don't cause centralization.

Really? So you think that one person/group controlling 1000s of mining machines where they can achieve more than half the hash rate isn't centralization?

nope.

I see.. Well either you're not all that bright since that's exactly why Satoshi designed what he did, or you have an ulterior motive for spreading that fallacy. Either way, not like it really matters since it's all going to end up being centralized so good luck to you.

What is that difference between 1000s of mining ASICs, 10000 of mining GPUs and 5 people controlling half of the coins in a PoS system?

For as long as there are poor and rich people, centralizion will keep occurring in one form on another.

What is the difference between cryptocurrency and central bankers shitting money out of thin air?

If a currency can not exist without being controlled by a few, then its not a currency, its shit.

Miners, hardware, electricity, ups the stakes significantly compared to PoS, which leads faster to centralization and shitcoins.

[Lowsnow]

They don't cause centralization.

Really? So you think that one person/group controlling 1000s of mining machines where they can achieve more than half the hash rate isn't centralization?

nope.

I see.. Well either you're not all that bright since that's exactly why Satoshi designed what he did, or you have an ulterior motive for spreading that fallacy. Either way, not like it really matters since it's all going to end up being centralized so good luck to you.

At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.
The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don’t generate.
At equilibrium size, many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm over a LAN.
https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/
https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/188/

[RivAngE]

They don't cause centralization.

Really? So you think that one person/group controlling 1000s of mining machines where they can achieve more than half the hash rate isn't centralization?

nope.

I see.. Well either you're not all that bright since that's exactly why Satoshi designed what he did, or you have an ulterior motive for spreading that fallacy. Either way, not like it really matters since it's all going to end up being centralized so good luck to you.

What is that difference between 1000s of mining ASICs, 10000 of mining GPUs and 5 people controlling half of the coins in a PoS system?

For as long as there are poor and rich people, centralizion will keep occurring in one form on another.

What is the difference between cryptocurrency and central bankers shitting money out of thin air?

If a currency can not exist without being controlled by a few, then its not a currency, its shit.

Miners, hardware, electricity, ups the stakes significantly compared to PoS, which leads faster to centralization and shitcoins.

You might believe Bitcoin is decentralized, but it's not much better than altcoins.
Thanks to BTC's aggressive halvings, the few who knew about BTC in its early days obtained more than half of its supply in less than 4 years... way to go for a system which hopes to stay around for a long time huh?
We've currently mined 85.70% of BTC, what will happen when there'll be no more interest to mine it?

On this regard, GRIN's system is safer and more decentralization-friendly.

[bbc.reporter]

@RivAngE. Also, Grin's monetary policy removes moon math, removes the early holders advantage and makes it more fair for late adopters.

I love bitcoin, however, there might be something in its monetary policy that is preventing it from wider distribution.

[AlecMe]

One worry arises in my head:

'Grin was launched without a premine, ICO, or founders rewards and relies on donations to support the long-term development of the project.'

So, there is a risk associated with a lack of interest at a point that could jeopardise the whole project?

What am I missing?

Also, 'early holders advantage and makes it fairer for late adopters' what I read is: 'Join later and make more' which could combat the above and maybe hope people will donate and not only profit? Greed goes a long way though 

[bbc.reporter]

@AlecMe. Can you explain join later and make more?

Grin's monetary supply discourages early whales that cause an influence on the supply. It also encourages wider distribution and a more stable price.

How would joining later, make more occur? If it would, it would be occuring under a stable price and less influential whales.

[bustedsynx]

@RivAngE. Also, Grin's monetary policy removes moon math, removes the early holders advantage and makes it more fair for late adopters.

I love bitcoin, however, there might be something in its monetary policy that is preventing it from wider distribution.

Oh, you haven't heard that Bitcoin is digital gold, a store of value that is not really meant for the masses because using it for payments is slow asf. So, it is expected that Bitcoin is not to be spent but to hodl.

[Chris!]

https://mwgrinpool.com is shutting down. We'll miss you greatly!

Although it has been a pleasure offering mining pool services to the GRIN community, it is with great sadness that we must announce that we will be shutting down MWGrinPool in the coming weeks. Our smaller market share has always made us an underdog, but the declining GRIN prices have strengthened our resolve to cut our losses and focus our energy on other endeavors.
Our stratum servers will shut off on November 1st and our wallet will turn off on December 1st. Please be sure to adjust your mining rigs accordingly, and redeem all of your GRIN by the end of November.
Thank you for considering our pool for your GRIN mining, and especially to those of you who stood by us even when the odds were stacked against us. We look forward to seeing many of you in the coming years.

[Hueristic]

They don't cause centralization.

Really? So you think that one person/group controlling 1000s of mining machines where they can achieve more than half the hash rate isn't centralization?

nope.

I see.. Well either you're not all that bright since that's exactly why Satoshi designed what he did, or you have an ulterior motive for spreading that fallacy. Either way, not like it really matters since it's all going to end up being centralized so good luck to you.

I am far more concerned with a bad actor that controls asics than a botnet owner trying to 51%. You see the botnet owner will not kill his income while whoever can afford the asic ranch may very well be an incentivized adversary. You can figure out the rest yourself unless you are the dullard you think i am.

[bbc.reporter]

@bustedsynx. That is what Grin's monetary policy and design was created to fix. I am not telling you that it is the best solution, however. But it appears that it might be a contender.