Why I say X11 and SHA3 are not ASIC resistent ?

[lamontweaver]

The whole point of ASIC resistant is to fight the first wave of ASIC SCRYPT miners and to make it difficult and expensive for the ASIC manufacturers to replace all GPU mining. No one is claiming ASIC proof. Anything is possible with enough money and effort. ASIC resistant is trying to make it impractical and unprofitable.

[TanteStefana]

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.

Dear, they are called ASIC resistant not proof.  It would be a total pita to make an ASIC for X-11, though it can and will be done when the market pressures are high enough.  What Evan was attempting to do was to give Darkcoin a few years, if possible, of ASIC free mining.  Only time will tell if he gets that many years.

Oops, I just realized you quoted Evan.  I guess I'm not quite understanding your point.  But ok, all's well

[hammerbrain]

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.

I'm on board.  My GPUs will only use X11 for a while now.  Half power, way cooler temps, less noise. awesome this is great

+1 Absolutely....obviously the future...half the power consumption alone is a win.

The only people against alt-algos are holding LTC,DOGE, etc, and hoping asics will cause them to blow them up in value.

Everyone's got an agenda these days. 

[InsertUsernameHere]

X11 just seems like a bloaware algorithm to me.

[IloveAnonCoin]

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.

I'm on board.  My GPUs will only use X11 for a while now.  Half power, way cooler temps, less noise. awesome this is great

+1 Absolutely....obviously the future...half the power consumption alone is a win.

The only people against alt-algos are holding LTC,DOGE, etc, and hoping asics will cause them to blow them up in value.

Everyone's got an agenda these days. 

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.

i agree that asic resistant or anti-asic are unhappy words, a correct word would be ASIC DETERRENT

[smilecoin23]

Thanks to my doubts, or I will be concealed for a long time.

[IloveAnonCoin]

Thanks to my doubts, or I will be concealed for a long time.

 

[IloveAnonCoin]

Take a look at this topic : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549592.0

[softron]

So someone can also make asics for sha3, x11.

[IloveAnonCoin]

So someone can also make asics for sha3, x11.

Yesssss !!!, and they can make it right now, if they want.

[markm]

But there is no point because we already have a primary hashing algorithm (SHA256) and a backup in case it turns out there is some fatal flaw in SHA256 (scrypt).

Is another backup really needed before any fatal flaw has been found in either of those algorithms?

Kids will go and play with their toy mining machines spamming the world with endless variations of toy coins, meanwhile serious finance can be done using serious blackchains that have serious amounts of hashing power securing them, and maybe even also using no proof of work required systems if any of those turn out to actually be secure.


I suppose though that if scrypt really is inefficient compared to something else (maybe SHA3 or somesuch) making ASICs for a more efficient algorithm to use as a backup algorithm might make sense.

-MarkM-

[IloveAnonCoin]

But there is no point because we already have a primary hashing algorithm (SHA256) and a backup in case it turns out there is some fatal flaw in SHA256 (scrypt).

Is another backup really needed before any fatal flaw has been found in either of those algorithms?

Kids will go and play with their toy mining machines spamming the world with endless variations of toy coins, meanwhile serious finance can be done using serious blackchains that have serious amounts of hashing power securing them, and maybe even also using no proof of work required systems if any of those turn out to actually be secure.


I suppose though that if scrypt really is inefficient compared to something else (maybe SHA3 or somesuch) making ASICs for a more efficient algorithm to use as a backup algorithm might make sense.

-MarkM-

I agree with you.

[IloveAnonCoin]

take a look at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549592.0
Someone are still thinking X11 is ASIC resistant.

[kache]

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.

Ye, no algo is 100% resistant to ASIC. SHA3 especially is very easy to make an ASIC for. The whole point of X11 is to have an algo that uses many different algos on random rotation to make ASICs for it a pain to make (since you'd need to have circuits for 11 different algos, each taking space).

[kache]

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-

No, absolutely no.
Mining should be profitable, both because it secures the coin, AND because it allows for a incredible revolution: it allows people to buy high end gaming rigs and pay back the investment in a few months, something that will be VERY important to ensure the penetration of VR in the next year, with Oculus Rift.

[kache]

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-

Yes, they are. And not only they are difficult to get ahold of, but the whole ASIC manifacturing market is a huge SCAM:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2182nb/kncminers_ceo_sam_cole_dumping_bitcoins_worth/

[lamontweaver]

100% resistant is an oxymoron. Resist means to hinder not to stop.

[cryptowho]

lol to everyone rooting for the term "resistant" and saying asic resistant coin are the choice now.


seems like you got sold the FUD. So much that you now preach it. hahaha


looking at you verticoners , hiros , darkers , and the rest.


Darkcoin , i see it trading strong in future because of it being anonymous and not because of ASIC . Their price is much higher. it has not crashed yet. it will. Soon as the volume of miners is much higher then buyers. aka soon its going to run out of steam and new people will stop being interest. it will have no new people interested. Just wait until 3-4 more copy-pasta coins emerge that offer the same. People will move around https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=529570.msg5993851#msg5993851

Vertcoin so far has preached the "non asic" angle since day one. Not even being the first n-scrypt coin. vertcoin i see it being still alive in near future because of the user base , just like doge. But the price is too hyped. Even now, that it crashed its too high for it.

hero? well i dont even know. seems like a darkcoin copy to me. that says it all.



in my opinion i see darkcoin become more successful then vert. but they both need to crash much more before they normalize to their true value

[kache]

There will eventually be ASICs for any mined algorithm which gains popularity. What this does is effectively act as a delay to help coins mature. It would take 8-12 months at least for asics to be developed for x11, maybe longer because it is dependent on economics. By that time those early adopter currencies with x11 will benefit from the asics, because ASICs benefit mature coins, and eventually the software technology would be developed for the next generation. There is a cycle to this. 

Nothing is ASIC proof. Nothing. Resistant means it would take a new R&D effort to develop asics, and that literally can take several months. At which time a coins can mature who are early adopters of the tech.

There is definitely a life cycle here, and one we must recognize, and the life cycle is not entirely bad.

Currently. But I think there is a chance of using true randomness within an algo to make ASICs impossible to make. It just hasn't been done yet.

[IloveAnonCoin]

lol to everyone rooting for the term "resistant" and saying asic resistant coin are the choice now.


seems like you got sold the FUD. So much that you now preach it. hahaha


looking at you verticoners , hiros , darkers , and the rest.


Darkcoin , i see it trading strong in future because of it being anonymous and not because of ASIC . Their price is much higher. it has not crashed yet. it will. Soon as the volume of miners is much higher then buyers. aka soon its going to run out of steam and new people will stop being interest. it will have no new people interested. Just wait until 3-4 more copy-pasta coins emerge that offer the same. People will move around https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=529570.msg5993851#msg5993851

Vertcoin so far has preached the "non asic" angle since day one. Not even being the first n-scrypt coin. vertcoin i see it being still alive in near future because of the user base , just like doge. But the price is too hyped. Even now, that it crashed its too high for it.

hero? well i dont even know. seems like a darkcoin copy to me. that says it all.



in my opinion i see darkcoin become more successful then vert. but they both need to crash much more before they normalize to their true value

Do you know about Darkcoin ?

1. Anonymous : BS, it is just bitcoin + coinjoin
2. ASIC resistant : BS, X11 are not ASIC resistant at all, even the Darkcoin dev said so
3. No premine : BS, Actually is instamine  13.8%. take a look at below

I looked at mining it, but it's clearly not profitable to mine it because it's been mostly premined

I will politely disagree: Darkcoin was pre-announced and fair-launched, and everybody had a chance to mine on day 1. A sizeable chunk of DRK was mined on day 1, but that's not at all the same as a premine, and to claim otherwise is BS sophistry. There is a meaningful distinction between premining and a pre-announced fair launch.

In any case, I'm sure the devs got a fair chunk of the day 1 coins, which I see as a GOOD thing because it means they are financially invested in making the coin succeed.

That aside -- if the day 1 mining rate is the only complaint you have against Darkcoin, then that's not too shabby. No coin is 100% perfect.

Regarding profitability, if you do the math taking into account the differences in X11 hashrate and the ~40% lower power draw, you'll find it's about on par with scrypt profitability, if not better.

When the coin is designed to yield a huge instamine that is exactly like a premine.

If darkcoin had had constant block size as they are now there would only been 776,525 coins. But the total coins is actually 3,829,439. That mean that of all the existing darkcoins 79,9% is instamined. And after what i have read they are going to reduce max coins to 22 million. That mean that darkcoin in reality got an instamine of 13,8%.

The fact that it is designed that way and that "everyone" could have mined it don't matter. It is designed as a scam, and a get rich quick scheme. Very good branding, but technically flawed. There is no doubt that this is a scam.