Why I say X11 and SHA3 are not ASIC resistent ?

[IloveAnonCoin]

I saw many altcoins say they are ASIC resistant because of X11 and SHA3. First time, I saw this statement, I decided to keep quite a while, because I think no one will believe that, turn out I saw much topics that claim X11 and SHA3 are algorithm for ASIC resistant. I think before this believes go wire spread more than the current situation, I need to do something. To let people know, what they are believe is TOTALLY wrong......WHY ?

X11 and SHA3 ( Keccak ) are not ASIC resistant at ALL, according to NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), if an algorithm wants to become SHA3 candidate during that time; one thing that algorithm must have is it need to be able to create by ASIC. AND every algorithm in X11 used to be SHA3 candidate until Keccak wins the competition and become SHA3.


Reference paper : http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/Round2/Aug2010/documents/papers/SCHAUMONT_SHA3.pdf

I hope, this is the topic will help someone who got misunderstanding that X11 and SHA3 are ASIC resistant change they believe before it will repeat step Bitcoin.

Here is the reponse from Darkcoin dev

X11 and SHA3 ( Keccak ) are not ASIC resistant at all, according to NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), if you want to become SHA3 candidate, you need to be able to create by ASIC. AND every algorithms in X11 used to be SHA3 candidate until Keccak win the competition and become SHA3.


Here is the paper : http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/Round2/Aug2010/documents/papers/SCHAUMONT_SHA3.pdf

The whole point of X11 is to try and get the same network growth cycle as Bitcoin. Once Darkcoin is worth enough, people will invest the capital to create the ASICs. I never really had an issue with that, in fact that was the point of creating a new hashing algorithm, I think it will be healthy in the end to move to ASICs.

[1714164441]

1714164441

[markm]

So multiple algorithms is simply deliberate inefficiency.

That is so stupid.

Basically scam people into paying out good money for deliberate inefficiency.

Oh gosh the market is too efficient, people who cannot generate electricity efficiently/cheaply are being squeezed out, gosh lets make the consumer pay through the nose to subsidize inefficient electricity generation.

What a scam.

-MarkM-

[MaGNeT]

It's possible to create an ASIC for every algo but for now 1 thing is sure: there are ASIC's coming for scrypt and they will move the GPU miners away from scryptcoins into new algo's.
The same happened to SHA256D coins, like Bitcoin.

I don't expect an X11 ASIC very soon so it will be the profit algo of 2014. And that's what miners care about: profit.

[wasamata]

I'd be more interested to see what happens when/if all the alt coins changed their algo's to be scrypt asic resistant and their companies go broke...
Leave the shit coins for the asic companies to feed on.

[markm]

Miners are an insane expense best avoided entirely.

Creating garbage whose only value is to miners amounts to deliberately creating inefficient markets to scam consumers.

Mining is SUPPOSED to be unprofitable.

Only the folk who can make electricity the most efficiently and secure blockchains with that electricity most efficiently should be able to eke out a bare existence, everyone else SHOULD be squeezed out, so that mining costs the actual users of the currency as little as possible.

Scams created purely for the purpose of trying to make inefficient out-dated idiots money is a scam, might as well just be honest and put them on welfare/foodstamps instead.

Its like deliberately screwing up the streets and roads to try to make horse-and-buggy still useable so buggy-whip makers can stay profitable...

-MarkM-

[foodies123]

Miners are an insane expense best avoided entirely.

Creating garbage whose only value is to miners amounts to deliberately creating inefficient markets to scam consumers.

Mining is SUPPOSED to be unprofitable.

Only the folk who can make electricity the most efficiently and secure blockchains with that electricity most efficiently should be able to eke out a bare existence, everyone else SHOULD be squeezed out, so that mining costs the actual users of the currency as little as possible.

Scams created purely for the purpose of trying to make inefficient out-dated idiots money is a scam, might as well just be honest and put them on welfare/foodstamps instead.

Its like deliberately screwing up the streets and roads to try to make horse-and-buggy still useable so buggy-whip makers can stay profitable...

-MarkM-

what you're saying makes sense but you're basically asking miners to produce a coin that makes you rich (as a skilled trader and whatnot) while they make nothing and they should be happy about it ?
also I see no evil in giving everyone (AND I MEAN EVERYONE ASIC GPU AND CPU) a fair shot at mining, crypto is not a race it's a new way to bring the world together ... remember ? worldwide transactions without third parties involved. direct p2p payments from one individual to another ... shit like that some crazy dude satoshi whatshisface said ...

[markm]

what you're saying makes sense but you're basically asking miners to produce a coin that makes you rich (as a skilled trader and whatnot) while they make nothing and they should be happy about it ?

Miners who generate or buy electricity efficiently (at a good cost) and mine efficiently (using the best most efficient chips) make plenty of money.

I am not asking buggy-whip makers to whip automobiles, I am suggesting they need switch to a more efficient and appropriate technology.

General purpose computers are great for general purpose computing. For specialised financial systems specialised systems are appropriate.

It is not as if ASICs are hard to come by, and solar power gets cheaper all the time too. Buy a few little solar panels and some block eruptors and knock yourself out.

The point of bitcoin was to get away from the garbage fiat money the politicians print on demand.

Now it is like you are a printer complaining you are out of work because money is no longer being printed profitably for you so you want to issue more and more new currencies to print so you can keep your money-presses rolling.

-MarkM-

[Kai Proctor]

I can't figure out your agenda, copy pasting the same thing all day long on every threads concerning X11.

You may have purposely missed my answer :

Each algorithm in X11 may individually be non resistant but it is not the case when they are combined. X11 is a set of hash functions and SHA3 is a hash function, apples and oranges.

[IloveAnonCoin]

I can't figure out your agenda, copy pasting the same thing all day long on every threads concerning X11.

You may have purposely missed my answer :

Each algorithm in X11 may individually be non resistant but it is not the case when they are combined. X11 is a set of hash functions and SHA3 is a hash function, apples and oranges.

Can you proof ? do you have theories back up your claim ?

[Kai Proctor]

I can't figure out your agenda, copy pasting the same thing all day long on every threads concerning X11.

You may have purposely missed my answer :

Each algorithm in X11 may individually be non resistant but it is not the case when they are combined. X11 is a set of hash functions and SHA3 is a hash function, apples and oranges.

Can you proof ? do you have theories back up your claim ?

Do YOU have a proof to back up your claim ? All I see is an article about SHA3 implementation what about the hardware implementation of a set of functions ...

[IloveAnonCoin]

I can't figure out your agenda, copy pasting the same thing all day long on every threads concerning X11.

You may have purposely missed my answer :

Each algorithm in X11 may individually be non resistant but it is not the case when they are combined. X11 is a set of hash functions and SHA3 is a hash function, apples and oranges.

Can you proof ? do you have theories back up your claim ?

Do YOU have a proof to back up your claim ? All I see is an article about SHA3 implementation what about the hardware implementation of a set of functions ...

Please answer the question, don't try to change the topic.

[r0ach]

Facts:

- A currency needs high liquidity to be a valid currency

- High market penetration gives you high liquidity

- ASICs give you CRAP for market penetration.

- Dogecoin would have gone nowhere and had 0 market pentration as Sha256.

If an ASIC is to exist at all for a currency, it is not healthy for it to occur till at least the first halving or 50% of it being mined in order to somewhat maximize market penetration.  

The current Darkcoin algorithm at least delays ASIC until the coin has substantial value due to cost of creating them for 11 algos.

[IloveAnonCoin]

Facts:

- A currency needs high liquidity to be a valid currency

- High market penetration gives you high liquidity

- ASICs give you CRAP for market penetration.

- Dogecoin would have gone nowhere and had 0 market pentration as Sha256.

If an ASIC is to exist at all for a currency, it is not healthy for it to occur till at least the first halving or 50% of it being mined in order to somewhat maximize market penetration.  

The current Darkcoin algorithm at least delays ASIC until the coin has substantial value due to cost of creating them for 11 algos.

I got your point, but what is the different between x11 coins and Bitcoin if you said as above ?
Again, my point is STOP using ASIC resistant word if your coins using x11 or SHA3. it is false advertising.

[r0ach]

Again, my point is STOP using ASIC resistant word if your coins using x11 or SHA3. it is false advertising.

It's more ASIC resistant than BTC or LTC are/were.

[vleroybrown]

I likey.. the streets

[Kai Proctor]

I can't figure out your agenda, copy pasting the same thing all day long on every threads concerning X11.

You may have purposely missed my answer :

Each algorithm in X11 may individually be non resistant but it is not the case when they are combined. X11 is a set of hash functions and SHA3 is a hash function, apples and oranges.

Can you proof ? do you have theories back up your claim ?

Do YOU have a proof to back up your claim ? All I see is an article about SHA3 implementation what about the hardware implementation of a set of functions ...

Please answer the question, don't try to change the topic.

 My first answer is pretty clear... You go around saying things you don't seem to understand and you ask me for proof when you provide none.

[IloveAnonCoin]

I can't figure out your agenda, copy pasting the same thing all day long on every threads concerning X11.

You may have purposely missed my answer :

Each algorithm in X11 may individually be non resistant but it is not the case when they are combined. X11 is a set of hash functions and SHA3 is a hash function, apples and oranges.

Can you proof ? do you have theories back up your claim ?

Do YOU have a proof to back up your claim ? All I see is an article about SHA3 implementation what about the hardware implementation of a set of functions ...

Please answer the question, don't try to change the topic.

 My first answer is pretty clear... You go around saying things you don't seem to understand and you ask me for proof when you provide none.

It is going to be funny, you answer what ? you claim when they are combined, it will be ASIC resistant. I ask you why ASIC resistant when they combine together ? just answer the claim that you state, I am willing to follow your theory if you have proof.

[Kai Proctor]

I can't figure out your agenda, copy pasting the same thing all day long on every threads concerning X11.

You may have purposely missed my answer :

Each algorithm in X11 may individually be non resistant but it is not the case when they are combined. X11 is a set of hash functions and SHA3 is a hash function, apples and oranges.

Can you proof ? do you have theories back up your claim ?

Do YOU have a proof to back up your claim ? All I see is an article about SHA3 implementation what about the hardware implementation of a set of functions ...

Please answer the question, don't try to change the topic.

 My first answer is pretty clear... You go around saying things you don't seem to understand and you ask me for proof when you provide none.

It is going to be funny, you answer what ? you claim when they are combined, it will be ASIC resistant. I ask you why ASIC resistant when they combine together ? just answer the claim that you state, I am willing to follow your theory if you have proof.

You don't understand that the hardware implementation of several functions is more difficult (and expensive) than the implementation of a single one, and that therefore a coin using a set of hashing functions is more ASIC resistant ? 

[r0ach]

Don't forget power requirements of having 11 chips always turned on.

[DemetriusAstroBlack]

You know how when you buy a watch it isn't waterproof, it's water resistant.  It's the same as that, there is no guarantee.  Your stating what everyone knows.