These new EFFICIENT x11 algos everyone is talking about ?? BULLSHIT or real?

[shtako]

@cryptohunter

You cant beat the trolls and you cant educate them. You are doing a great job with this thread to enlighten the community, but dont drive yourself crazy. 

[iopq]

It quite good algo less energy consumption. Less noise try mining hirocoin

the algo = less energy?? you are still posting this after reading the entire thread?

yes

compare SHA-256 mining with GPU to scrypt
SHA-256 was optimized to the bone with Bitcoin, it was over 99% efficient compared to a "perfect" miner that didn't waste any ops anywhere because it only had a few ops here and there that were necessary but not part of the algorithm

yet it still takes less energy than mining scrypt, when scrypt possibly isn't even as optimized (there aren't several competing scrypt kernels afaik, but for Bitcoin there was fatk, poclbm, diablo, etc.)

Ok so that sounds more like the replies we are after.  Let me just understand this.

sha256 miners although almost 100% efficient running on gpu - draw less electricity and creates less heat than scrypt... can i ask by exactly how much less electricity? i've never mined sha256...are we talking 50%

sha256 mining you are sure was optimised to almost 100%?  what level of optimisation do you consider x11 miners to have at this point?

Can this therefore be a direct indication and something we can even apply to x11 ?

Also is there any reason at all why x11 could or should me more efficient than QRK?  in terms of heat and electricity used even when the cards calculations resources are maxed and fully optimised?

So far the answer i am getting on that is NO. However if you really think it is possible that is something we need to investigate and consider now.

the very first SHA-256 miner was only maybe 5% less efficient than the best one (poclbm was giving me good hash rates before a lot of these newer kernels optimized it by a few more percent)
people just found 1% improvements here and there a few times and after a while there were no optimizations left
some optimizations reduced the total instruction count by one out of 1300 (less than 0.1% improvement)

SHA-256 takes like 20% less energy to mine off the top of my head because it doesn't use the GPU ram as much
so I'm sure there are algorithms that take even less GPU power because they rape one part of the chip (bottleneck) and don't touch the rest of it much

OK so it seems that some algos will bottleneck certain parts of the gpu before others so since other parts are left redundant it draws less energy. I did actually ask that exact thing earlier in the thread but nobody took up on it. Okay so let's be fair... so algos on x11 could be running as fast as they ever will on our gpus and will burn less energy than scrypt? is that a fair assumption?  

However is 50% sounding correct? that does sound like some miner tweaks and mods could be very useful..the bottlenecks seem rather large here?

Also since none of these algos in this mix or qrks mix are memory hard, it seems those 2 should be equally as efficient since the algos will be creating these same bottlenecks and stoping the memory getting over taxed? or very very close too close to seperate really. So x11 is not ground breaking with regard the efficiency aspect since we can see sha256 and all the other algos in QRK and x11 are possibly just as easy on our electricity usage.


So the super new efficiency story seems to be a good marketing  at best or perhaps just wishful thinking.... but perhaps not as open to super tweaking of the miner as we thought could be taking place.

So we rule out going x11 based on efficiency alone...


Let's do it like this.... a kind of battle of the algos....


so for efficiency running on gpu with current miners - - any algo that is not memory hard?  qrk, x11, single algos ...sha 256 ... all the others...


so for asic resistance - - scryptN, vs scrypt jane - high n, vs QRK, vs X11.   Let's do that one now.... who wins the anti asic battle and why? technical difficulty to create and cost to create...lets take in all the factors here....??

50% might be the right amount, but I didn't find x11 to be the most efficient out of all algorithms
groestl so far is the most efficient on my computer (both the myriad kind and the groestlcoin kind)
I don't know how much more optimization those miners can get, though

there is nothing special about x11 at all

[flipme]

It quite good algo less energy consumption. Less noise try mining hirocoin

the algo = less energy?? you are still posting this after reading the entire thread?

yes

compare SHA-256 mining with GPU to scrypt
SHA-256 was optimized to the bone with Bitcoin, it was over 99% efficient compared to a "perfect" miner that didn't waste any ops anywhere because it only had a few ops here and there that were necessary but not part of the algorithm

yet it still takes less energy than mining scrypt, when scrypt possibly isn't even as optimized (there aren't several competing scrypt kernels afaik, but for Bitcoin there was fatk, poclbm, diablo, etc.)

Ok so that sounds more like the replies we are after.  Let me just understand this.

sha256 miners although almost 100% efficient running on gpu - draw less electricity and creates less heat than scrypt... can i ask by exactly how much less electricity? i've never mined sha256...are we talking 50%

sha256 mining you are sure was optimised to almost 100%?  what level of optimisation do you consider x11 miners to have at this point?

Can this therefore be a direct indication and something we can even apply to x11 ?

Also is there any reason at all why x11 could or should me more efficient than QRK?  in terms of heat and electricity used even when the cards calculations resources are maxed and fully optimised?

So far the answer i am getting on that is NO. However if you really think it is possible that is something we need to investigate and consider now.

the very first SHA-256 miner was only maybe 5% less efficient than the best one (poclbm was giving me good hash rates before a lot of these newer kernels optimized it by a few more percent)
people just found 1% improvements here and there a few times and after a while there were no optimizations left
some optimizations reduced the total instruction count by one out of 1300 (less than 0.1% improvement)

SHA-256 takes like 20% less energy to mine off the top of my head because it doesn't use the GPU ram as much
so I'm sure there are algorithms that take even less GPU power because they rape one part of the chip (bottleneck) and don't touch the rest of it much

OK so it seems that some algos will bottleneck certain parts of the gpu before others so since other parts are left redundant it draws less energy. I did actually ask that exact thing earlier in the thread but nobody took up on it. Okay so let's be fair... so algos on x11 could be running as fast as they ever will on our gpus and will burn less energy than scrypt? is that a fair assumption?  

However is 50% sounding correct? that does sound like some miner tweaks and mods could be very useful..the bottlenecks seem rather large here?

Also since none of these algos in this mix or qrks mix are memory hard, it seems those 2 should be equally as efficient since the algos will be creating these same bottlenecks and stoping the memory getting over taxed? or very very close too close to seperate really. So x11 is not ground breaking with regard the efficiency aspect since we can see sha256 and all the other algos in QRK and x11 are possibly just as easy on our electricity usage.


So the super new efficiency story seems to be a good marketing  at best or perhaps just wishful thinking.... but perhaps not as open to super tweaking of the miner as we thought could be taking place.

So we rule out going x11 based on efficiency alone...


Let's do it like this.... a kind of battle of the algos....


so for efficiency running on gpu with current miners - - any algo that is not memory hard?  qrk, x11, single algos ...sha 256 ... all the others...


so for asic resistance - - scryptN, vs scrypt jane - high n, vs QRK, vs X11.   Let's do that one now.... who wins the anti asic battle and why? technical difficulty to create and cost to create...lets take in all the factors here....??

You could make it run much faster on a farm with a smart paralleling solution.
That would be a thread dispatcher for the algos among entities delivering a timely result according to the total cycle time.
Get a quote from the guys who do the weather forecast software.
Or from Disney, or lets call a name, PIXAR.

Or Google.
Whats up with the Google Coin. If it's for real I'd expect a real overcast for anything Altcoin.
They probably come up with their own algo.

Or maybe they'll just use X11, bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha.

They may well use x11 but before they decide to they just need answers to a few of these questions.

1. is it more efficient than qrk?
2. is it more secure than qrk?
3. is it more efficient than scrypt? or is the miner just crippled and can't use the full potential of the card?
4. are there more efficient miners already out for x11 that are more optimised?
5. is it more asic resistant that qrk?
6. is it more asic resistant that scyptN , scrypt jane
7. is it x12, x13, x99 going to be better? will we need to fork all of the coins over and over again?


just yes or no with some kind of reasoning they can follow.... it can't be that hard can it to answer a few questions to the best of your knowledge?

If we had a direct answer to some of those backed up with some real data that could be a great starting point ...

Here beggar, just to dismantle your house of crap I'll give you some details about the facts you don't understand.

1. is it more efficient than qrk? - There is nothing like efficiency to the algo itself. Software could be efficient. The algo is the algo.

2. is it more secure than qrk?

Yes

3. is it more efficient than scrypt? or is the miner just crippled and can't use the full potential of the card?

It does use 100% of the intruction set of available GPUs at a very good level of optimization.

4. are there more efficient miners already out for x11 that are more optimised?

No.

5. is it more asic resistant that qrk?

Yes, it uses 11 algos, Quark only uses 6. It could change to anything else tomorrow.
Fear mongering of "FORKING" is just a matter of deployment of the right software.

6. is it more asic resistant that scyptN , scrypt jane

Of course. The only advantage these methods have is an increased amount of memory necessary to run the algo.
That means higher power consumption and extreme utilization of the hardware, for nothing actually.
It doesn't improve the security of the challenge, it just takes more power to solve.
So it's, in my opinion, a step in the wrong direction, as is the assumption to make a coin more secure by the size of the network.

You`re trying to sell camel shit on a camel market here.

7. is it x12, x13, x99 going to be better? will we need to fork all of the coins over and over again?

No, I think X123 will be the final solution.

[btc-mike]

I will post gpuz/cgminer screenshots if you would like of my gpu (7750) running script and x11 algos. I don't have a watt meter so I can't measure power consumption but one can assume lower temps, lower watt usage.

i said CPU MINER

gpu miners are not even listed on the ANN page lol
when was the coin released ? and they are STILL have not added them to the ANN page yet everything else conceivable is ?
and yet its still paraded around as a cpu only coin and listed on the "cpu only coins" topic ...

I will rename the "CPU Only" topic to CPU Friendly or something similar. The current, publicly available X11 GPU miner does NOT have a large advantage over the X11 CPU miner. That is why it is why X11 coins are on the list.

The current GPU miner may leave room for optimization.  

[cryptohunter]

It quite good algo less energy consumption. Less noise try mining hirocoin

the algo = less energy?? you are still posting this after reading the entire thread?

yes

compare SHA-256 mining with GPU to scrypt
SHA-256 was optimized to the bone with Bitcoin, it was over 99% efficient compared to a "perfect" miner that didn't waste any ops anywhere because it only had a few ops here and there that were necessary but not part of the algorithm

yet it still takes less energy than mining scrypt, when scrypt possibly isn't even as optimized (there aren't several competing scrypt kernels afaik, but for Bitcoin there was fatk, poclbm, diablo, etc.)

Ok so that sounds more like the replies we are after.  Let me just understand this.

sha256 miners although almost 100% efficient running on gpu - draw less electricity and creates less heat than scrypt... can i ask by exactly how much less electricity? i've never mined sha256...are we talking 50%

sha256 mining you are sure was optimised to almost 100%?  what level of optimisation do you consider x11 miners to have at this point?

Can this therefore be a direct indication and something we can even apply to x11 ?

Also is there any reason at all why x11 could or should me more efficient than QRK?  in terms of heat and electricity used even when the cards calculations resources are maxed and fully optimised?

So far the answer i am getting on that is NO. However if you really think it is possible that is something we need to investigate and consider now.

the very first SHA-256 miner was only maybe 5% less efficient than the best one (poclbm was giving me good hash rates before a lot of these newer kernels optimized it by a few more percent)
people just found 1% improvements here and there a few times and after a while there were no optimizations left
some optimizations reduced the total instruction count by one out of 1300 (less than 0.1% improvement)

SHA-256 takes like 20% less energy to mine off the top of my head because it doesn't use the GPU ram as much
so I'm sure there are algorithms that take even less GPU power because they rape one part of the chip (bottleneck) and don't touch the rest of it much

OK so it seems that some algos will bottleneck certain parts of the gpu before others so since other parts are left redundant it draws less energy. I did actually ask that exact thing earlier in the thread but nobody took up on it. Okay so let's be fair... so algos on x11 could be running as fast as they ever will on our gpus and will burn less energy than scrypt? is that a fair assumption?  

However is 50% sounding correct? that does sound like some miner tweaks and mods could be very useful..the bottlenecks seem rather large here?

Also since none of these algos in this mix or qrks mix are memory hard, it seems those 2 should be equally as efficient since the algos will be creating these same bottlenecks and stoping the memory getting over taxed? or very very close too close to seperate really. So x11 is not ground breaking with regard the efficiency aspect since we can see sha256 and all the other algos in QRK and x11 are possibly just as easy on our electricity usage.


So the super new efficiency story seems to be a good marketing  at best or perhaps just wishful thinking.... but perhaps not as open to super tweaking of the miner as we thought could be taking place.

So we rule out going x11 based on efficiency alone...


Let's do it like this.... a kind of battle of the algos....


so for efficiency running on gpu with current miners - - any algo that is not memory hard?  qrk, x11, single algos ...sha 256 ... all the others...


so for asic resistance - - scryptN, vs scrypt jane - high n, vs QRK, vs X11.   Let's do that one now.... who wins the anti asic battle and why? technical difficulty to create and cost to create...lets take in all the factors here....??

You could make it run much faster on a farm with a smart paralleling solution.
That would be a thread dispatcher for the algos among entities delivering a timely result according to the total cycle time.
Get a quote from the guys who do the weather forecast software.
Or from Disney, or lets call a name, PIXAR.

Or Google.
Whats up with the Google Coin. If it's for real I'd expect a real overcast for anything Altcoin.
They probably come up with their own algo.

Or maybe they'll just use X11, bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha bwahaha.

They may well use x11 but before they decide to they just need answers to a few of these questions.

1. is it more efficient than qrk?
2. is it more secure than qrk?
3. is it more efficient than scrypt? or is the miner just crippled and can't use the full potential of the card?
4. are there more efficient miners already out for x11 that are more optimised?
5. is it more asic resistant that qrk?
6. is it more asic resistant that scyptN , scrypt jane
7. is it x12, x13, x99 going to be better? will we need to fork all of the coins over and over again?


just yes or no with some kind of reasoning they can follow.... it can't be that hard can it to answer a few questions to the best of your knowledge?

If we had a direct answer to some of those backed up with some real data that could be a great starting point ...

Here beggar, just to dismantle your house of crap I'll give you some details about the facts you don't understand.

1. is it more efficient than qrk? - There is nothing like efficiency to the algo itself. Software could be efficient. The algo is the algo.

2. is it more secure than qrk?

Yes

3. is it more efficient than scrypt? or is the miner just crippled and can't use the full potential of the card?

It does use 100% of the intruction set of available GPUs at a very good level of optimization.

4. are there more efficient miners already out for x11 that are more optimised?

No.

5. is it more asic resistant that qrk?

Yes, it uses 11 algos, Quark only uses 6. It could change to anything else tomorrow.
Fear mongering of "FORKING" is just a matter of deployment of the right software.

6. is it more asic resistant that scyptN , scrypt jane

Of course. The only advantage these methods have is an increased amount of memory necessary to run the algo.
That means higher power consumption and extreme utilization of the hardware, for nothing actually.
It doesn't improve the security of the challenge, it just takes more power to solve.
So it's, in my opinion, a step in the wrong direction, as is the assumption to make a coin more secure by the size of the network.

You`re trying to sell camel shit on a camel market here.

7. is it x12, x13, x99 going to be better? will we need to fork all of the coins over and over again?

No, I think X123 will be the final solution.

Hmmm interesting...let's take this step by step... you don't give clear answers so i will try to clarify what you are saying.

1. No x11 is not more efficient than qrk. Yes we appreciate the efficiency is due to the mining software and the gpu.

2. Is x11 more secure than quark ? you say yes with no explanation.... expand on this. Secure against what attacks? and how is it more secure?? (answer unclear at this time)

3. In your opinion with some justification the miner may not be all that crippled. Perhaps you are correct we don't know. Really 50 % gpu only and that is fully optimised?? Maybe there is a serious bottleneck somewhere and further optimisation is not possible... but i guess nobody knows for sure yet.

4. wow NO... as simple as that?  really, explain how you can guarantee this fact? we do need some reason to back up opinion, perhaps you have a good reason but really you didn't express it all that well.

5. Hmm does having more algos essentially make it more asic resistant. Does the fact these are sequential and therefore predictable not make it easier for asics than qrk since that is random?  I have no idea on this.. perhaps others can expand on this one. Either way are both x11 and qrk less asic resistant than memory hard algos?

6. No it is not more asic resistant that scrypt N. Since it will be most costly in terms of hardware to implement scrypt N asics. So it seems scryptN is more asic resistant due to costs? or you consider the costs of the extra hardware not as much of an issue as creating an asic to tackle the 11 algos?  

7. x123 ....... should we fork to this immediately or build up one at a time ?

[cryptohunter]

@cryptohunter

You cant beat the trolls and you cant educate them. You are doing a great job with this thread to enlighten the community, but dont drive yourself crazy. 

thank you, yes i am enlightening myself also.... we are only trying to find the truth and yet such hostility ensues ....

There is no agenda here for my part aside from the fact i don't want to risk hardforking 3 coins i am mining now to x11 if it is not even worth doing so and there are better options.

[flipme]

@cryptohunter

You cant beat the trolls and you cant educate them. You are doing a great job with this thread to enlighten the community, but dont drive yourself crazy.  

thank you, yes i am enlightening myself also.... we are only trying to find the truth and yet such hostility ensues ....

There is no agenda here for my part aside from the fact i don't want to risk hardforking 3 coins i am mining now to x11 if it is not even worth doing so and there are better options.

I won't waste my time with you anymore.
It's a lot like listening to a try of a conversation between two parking lot hookers.

CU later

[cryptohunter]

@cryptohunter

You cant beat the trolls and you cant educate them. You are doing a great job with this thread to enlighten the community, but dont drive yourself crazy. 

thank you, yes i am enlightening myself also.... we are only trying to find the truth and yet such hostility ensues ....

There is no agenda here for my part aside from the fact i don't want to risk hardforking 3 coins i am mining now to x11 if it is not even worth doing so and there are better options.

I won't waste my time with you anymore.
It's a lot like listening to a try of a conversation between to parking lot hookers.

CU later

I'll try to decipher that .... however, thanks for your input so far you have been quite helpful.

[flipme]

@cryptohunter

You cant beat the trolls and you cant educate them. You are doing a great job with this thread to enlighten the community, but dont drive yourself crazy.  

thank you, yes i am enlightening myself also.... we are only trying to find the truth and yet such hostility ensues ....

There is no agenda here for my part aside from the fact i don't want to risk hardforking 3 coins i am mining now to x11 if it is not even worth doing so and there are better options.

I won't waste my time with you anymore.
It's a lot like listening to a try of a conversation between to parking lot hookers.

CU later

I'll try to decipher that .... however, thanks for your input so far you have been quite helpful.

Thanks, I really appreciate an honest opinion.
I always had a heart for the disabled.

[cryptohunter]

@cryptohunter

You cant beat the trolls and you cant educate them. You are doing a great job with this thread to enlighten the community, but dont drive yourself crazy. 

thank you, yes i am enlightening myself also.... we are only trying to find the truth and yet such hostility ensues ....

There is no agenda here for my part aside from the fact i don't want to risk hardforking 3 coins i am mining now to x11 if it is not even worth doing so and there are better options.

I won't waste my time with you anymore.
It's a lot like listening to a try of a conversation between to parking lot hookers.

CU later

I'll try to decipher that .... however, thanks for your input so far you have been quite helpful.

Thanks, I really appreciate an honest opinion.

Ah, great you're back again. Thought we'd lost you for a moment... so now you're back and want to waste more time. Can you take a look at these and clear up these points you made. I am genuinely interested in understanding your answers to the questions i asked you before.... here's where we were at.

Hmmm interesting...let's take this step by step... you don't give clear answers so i will try to clarify what you are saying.


1. No x11 is not more efficient than qrk. Yes we appreciate the efficiency is due to the mining software and the gpu.

2. Is x11 more secure than quark ? you say yes with no explanation.... expand on this. Secure against what attacks? and how is it more secure?? (answer unclear at this time)

3. In your opinion with some justification the miner may not be all that crippled. Perhaps you are correct we don't know. Really 50 % gpu only and that is fully optimised?? Maybe there is a serious bottleneck somewhere and further optimisation is not possible... but i guess nobody knows for sure yet. Even you can't know for sure can you?

4. wow NO... as simple as that?  really, explain how you can guarantee this fact? we do need some reason to back up opinion, perhaps you have a good reason but really you didn't express it all that well.

5. Hmm does having more algos essentially make it more asic resistant. Does the fact these are sequential and therefore predictable not make it easier for asics than qrk since that is random?  I have no idea on this.. perhaps others can expand on this one. Either way are both x11 and qrk less asic resistant than memory hard algos?

6. No it is not more asic resistant that scrypt N. Since it will be most costly in terms of hardware to implement scrypt N asics. So it seems scryptN is more asic resistant due to costs? or you consider the costs of the extra hardware not as much of an issue as creating an asic to tackle the 11 algos? 

7. x123 ....... should we fork to this immediately or build up one at a time ? Smiley

[Zzzack]

Quark's algo is the best I've seen. Sadly, I don't know if its worth a major investment because I'm not sure if the community can overcome the FUD from months ago or if the community can figure out how to market itself to people who will buy it.

x11 is mainly a marketing ploy.

Would people be interested in an IPO for my x50 coin? Much secure

[kache]

I honestly wonder: why hasn't anyone created yet an algo that randomly changes parts of itself every x blocks? This would make ASICs impossible, and only FPGA possible to use, thus limiting the issue a lot...

[flipme]

I honestly wonder: why hasn't anyone created yet an algo that randomly changes parts of itself every x blocks? This would make ASICs impossible, and only FPGA possible to use, thus limiting the issue a lot...

No, it won't, it's just a matter of the software.
For the moment the only method to secure against ASICs is a combination of algos for which there are no ASICs.

A real rat race. But funny. I like it.
An opportunity to call out people for their true motives.

[IloveAnonCoin]

I honestly wonder: why hasn't anyone created yet an algo that randomly changes parts of itself every x blocks? This would make ASICs impossible, and only FPGA possible to use, thus limiting the issue a lot...

No, it won't, it's just a matter of the software.
For the moment the only method to secure against ASICs is a combination of algos for which there are no ASICs.

A real rat race. But funny. I like it.
An opportunity to call out people for their true motives.

Every algorithms in X11 is able to do ASIC since day one because it is requirement from NIST to become SHA3 candidate.

[AlexGR]

x11 is mainly a marketing ploy.

Darkcoin (which first used x11) didn't do any form of self-promotion or self-marketing. It's one of the most under-promoted coins out there. Darkcoin didn't even use x11 as it's main selling point but rather DarkSend. How can x11 be a marketing ploy when there was no marketing for x11?

[flipme]

I honestly wonder: why hasn't anyone created yet an algo that randomly changes parts of itself every x blocks? This would make ASICs impossible, and only FPGA possible to use, thus limiting the issue a lot...

No, it won't, it's just a matter of the software.
For the moment the only method to secure against ASICs is a combination of algos for which there are no ASICs.

A real rat race. But funny. I like it.
An opportunity to call out people for their true motives.

Every algorithms in X11 is able to do ASIC since day one because it is requirement from NIST to become SHA3 candidate.

Ah really, give me an address of suppliers for each of those.
And if it makes 11 we gonna change to 12. Tomorrow.
You wouldn't even recognize the change, because we wouldn't even have to tell you.
Our software would just update what you generally are not interested in, anyway.

[flipme]

And don't start telling me crap about NIST.
It's the same institution responsible for the mandatory implementation of indecent light bulbs,
Ah sorry, it's incandescent, not indecent, but it is just that.

It actually is an organization on the declining part of industrialization.
We are teaching them how things are rolling.
They are among the stupidest motherfuckers you could have mentioned here.

[rudius]

ASIC resistance, not asic proof. Its been a surprise there haven't been ASICs yet. Litecoin dev team has had there official response, I doubt that they were bribed not to change algo's.

asic resistance - - so more asic resistant than scrypt N? more asic resistant that QRK, more asic resistant than scrypt jane with high n? what about this myriad coin idea? is that pretty asic resistant or not?

is it true or not?  come on really i want to know the answer? i am asking not telling?

Hi, glad you putting myriad in this thread.

Myriad is for sure not asic resistant. It has SHA256 and scrypt in his algos. BUT it has that nobody has and that markets havent valued yet, ie a very secure network. 51% attacks are theorically impossible as you must have 51% of the total hashrate, so you must be well prepared. So the main concern about ASICs is less or not important.

What the market need is a coin like myriad but with the possibility to switch one of ten algos if something smells. I mean the share of hash power for an algo could progressive. A new algo would have 0% at the beginning ang with each block winning 0.01% until it reaches his target share. The old algo would have the opposit until it reaches 0%.

Let alone the threat of dismissing an algo, there would be no Asics for it as you can change it very easily.

I really like X11 just because my GPUs run cooler. I don t think that it s garbage like everyone but sure as some margin for optimisation. I will not go back to scrypt for sure.

Im waiting for a coin which have 10 different algos, everyone of each doesnt have asics, and with the capacity of switching one if necessary with very little downside.
This is the best to be ASCI PROOF.  

[gadado]

Maybe that might help a bit:

Algos extracted from SPH-SGMiner sources

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=475795.0


- FC FuguCoin (1 time 256) R9 290 145MH/s  
    1 fugue256


- Ink INKcoin (2 times 512) R9 290 45MH/s  
    1 shavite
    2 shavite

- MYR MyriadCoin (2 (512+256))  R9 290  10MH/s
    1 groestl
    2 sha256

- GRS GroestlCoin (2 times 512)  R9 290  5.5MH/s
    1 groestl
    2 groestl

- Q2C Qubit (5 times 512) R9 290 5MH/s
    1 luffa
    2 cubehash
    3 shavite
    4 simd
    5 echo

- SIC Sifcoin( 6 times 512) R9 290 4.5MH/s
    1 blake
    2 bmw
    3 groestl
    4 jh
    5 keccak
    6 skein

- DRK DarkCoin X11 (11 times 512)  R9 290 2.5MH/s
    1 blake          
    2 bmw
    3 groestl
    4 skein
    5 jh
    6 keccak
    7 luffa      
    8 cubehash  
    9 shavite
   10 simd
   11 echo

- QRK Quark (9 times 512) R9 290  2.1MH/s
    1 blake
    2 bmw
    3 groestl  OR  skein
    4 groestl
    5 jh
    6 blake    OR  bmw
    7 keccak
    8 skein
    9 keccak   OR  jh


- ANI AnimeCoin (9 times 512) R9 290 1.8MH/s
    1 sph_bmw
    2 sph_blake
    3 groestl    OR  skein
    4 groestl
    5 jh
    6 blake      OR  bmw
    7 keccak
    8 skein
    9 keccak     OR  jh

----------------------------------------------------


Sorted for Hash/s

   (Workload per Hash[1/H] : Speed[MH/s] -> worklaod*speed -> rel. Performance)
- FC FuguCoin       (  256 : 145   -> 37120 M/s)
- Ink INKcoin       ( 1024 :  45   -> 46080 M/s)
- MYR MyriadCoin    (  768 :  10   ->  7680 M/s)
- GRS GroestlCoin   ( 1024 :   5.5 ->  5632 M/s)
- Q2C Qubit         ( 2560 :   5   -> 12800 M/s)
- SIC Sifcoin       ( 3072 :   4.5 -> 13824 M/s)
- DRK DarkCoin X11  ( 5632 :   2.5 -> 14080 M/s)
- QRK Quark         ( 4608 :   2.1 ->  9677 M/s)
- ANI AnimeCoin     ( 4608 :   1.8 ->  8294 M/s)



Sorted for relative Performance:

- Ink INKcoin       ( 1024 *  45   -> 46080 M/s)
- FC FuguCoin       (  256 * 145   -> 37120 M/s)
- DRK DarkCoin X11  ( 5632 *   2.5 -> 14080 M/s)
- SIC Sifcoin       ( 3072 *   4.5 -> 13824 M/s)
- Q2C Qubit         ( 2560 *   5   -> 12800 M/s)
- QRK Quark         ( 4608 *   2.1 ->  9677 M/s)
- ANI AnimeCoin     ( 4608 *   1.8 ->  8294 M/s)
- MYR MyriadCoin    (  768 *  10   ->  7680 M/s)
- GRS GroestlCoin   ( 1024 *   5.5 ->  5632 M/s)

-----

Acording to this raw comperation X11's performance is on the better half compared to the other algos in tose miner.
Of course this doesn't really takes the differences between each Hash algo into account and the size it takes on the GPU

So it is a raw comperation but an interesting one since all those Algos are build out of the very same Hash Moduls in the miner and used the very same way.

Now it can be that all the Hash Moduls are not very efficient and a comperation with other miners that have the same has moduls but implemented in a different way would be very interesting!!

Specially interesting is that the sph miner has the keccak hash but no MaxCoin implementation !?

The CudaMiner has a good and fast keccak so it had been very interesting to compare this! I wonder if it's maybe because the
single keccack modul isn't that good implemented in sph-miner?

I don't have much experiences with SPH-miner nore all this Algos with exception of X11. So maybe others can sheed more light on this.

---

Personel I don't really bother the efficiency or non efficiency of X11.

For me the point of X11 is simple (I discovered it a week ago):

I finnaly can get home and don't have to endure 50 degree celsius in my house and a noise that you can't enjoy anything anymore!!
And it uses less power. It's like a dream for one that simple wants to mine a bit. The standard joe if you want so.
And the summer is comming fast.

As long as the majority has the same ..maybe inefficient miner... we all have a big advantage from it!

If one figures out that you can optimize this to get it hot and noisy as scrypt..if thats even possible..I think it's not or not to that degree..which would mean that the standard GPU isn't optimal for those algos..then I guess some like me simple will search for the next cooler "inefficient" algo.

Security and such is secondary since ..well you know... how long do you hold a coin as miner?

[flipme]

x11 is mainly a marketing ploy.

Darkcoin (which first used x11) didn't do any form of self-promotion or self-marketing. It's one of the most under-promoted coins out there. Darkcoin didn't even use x11 as it's main selling point but rather DarkSend. How can x11 be a marketing ploy when there was no marketing for x11?

Ya man, but I'm not running for it at the current diff.
No way. HIRO - the logo alone does it for me.

Ask yourself why people are mining DRK at a diff of 500+
And why people keep buying it.
Because it's all crap, of course.

These modern coins with some variety in their software are about the only coins with a steady value now.
Just look at it, there is no discussion necessary, at least not for me.
It's so pretty how this is going. On some days I made more money trading DRK and HIRO than mining them.
It was so easy, reminded me of no-brain trades I did when AOL was the next best thing to buy.

The general condition is a total fuckup of anything based on Scrypt.
The sooner you realize it, the better for your wallets.