[XMR] Monero Speculation

[Shnikes101]

Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.

https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631

I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance.  I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets.  The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".

This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.

I believe the question at the heart of this idea is clear:  Is it desirable to stick to the original 1 CPU 1 vote vision?  And if so, is it FEASIBLE to continue to enforce that vision?  With ASICs already in the wild it is a very valid set of questions.

If the answer to either is NO, then arguably we should move towards not only allowing ASIC development, but making it as easy as possible.

Disclaimer - I have been fairly firmly in the "original vision" camp for a long time.  But over the years I have grown more amenable to considering other options.

If ASICs are readily available from several manufacturers/wholesalers/retailers at reasonable prices like CPUs and GPUs are I don't see why Monero shouldn't embrace them, but as of now that is not the case.

I seem to fall in this camp. I do believe the general argument of the potential efficiency and stability ASICs could bring to a network is of merit - and at the very least worth discussing. But yes - current price point and the current state of centralized control of manufacturing and retail make me believe now is just not the time for Monero to adopt ASICs

[1715161988]

1715161988

[1715161988]

1715161988

[1715161988]

1715161988

[johnalan]

I was sure we wouldn't see < 0.027, however that looks unlikely now with a phat 3K XMR order sitting at 0.028.

I really expected 0.03 (now) trading slowly up to 0.05 over the next few months to bring us inline for 1Kusd XMR.

I guess I was overly optimistic...

Looking bearish rn.

[Globb0]

Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.

https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631

I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance.  I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets.  The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".

This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.

A clear difference here is cost to entry.

Botnet owner = 0 (aside some small costs and ofc the initial effort)

ASIC owner = financial investment, commitment


I think one of these clearly cares more about the coin health that the other.


Also I'm reminded of an old description of venture capitalism I was once told. That was "Buy it for a pound, sell it for 2 pounds"


So in the hacker, botnet example its buy it for free. Where is their sell limit then?   erk

[Billy Bunter]

Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.

https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631

I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance.  I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets.  The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".

This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.

A clear difference here is cost to entry.

Botnet owner = 0 (aside some small costs and ofc the initial effort)

ASIC owner = financial investment, commitment


I think one of these clearly cares more about the coin health that the other.


Also I'm reminded of an old description of venture capitalism I was once told. That was "Buy it for a pound, sell it for 2 pounds"


So in the hacker, botnet example its buy it for free. Where is their sell limit then?   erk

Yes, there is an argument that ASICS lead to price stability, if not upward pressure.

[Billy Bunter]

I was sure we wouldn't see < 0.027, however that looks unlikely now with a phat 3K XMR order sitting at 0.028.

I really expected 0.03 (now) trading slowly up to 0.05 over the next few months to bring us inline for 1Kusd XMR.

I guess I was overly optimistic...

Looking bearish rn.

You are the eternal optimist - which, by the way, is not a bad thing.

[garytheasshole]

Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.

https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631

I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance.  I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets.  The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".

This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.

A clear difference here is cost to entry.

Botnet owner = 0 (aside some small costs and ofc the initial effort)

ASIC owner = financial investment, commitment


I think one of these clearly cares more about the coin health that the other.


Also I'm reminded of an old description of venture capitalism I was once told. That was "Buy it for a pound, sell it for 2 pounds"


So in the hacker, botnet example its buy it for free. Where is their sell limit then?   erk

ASICs farms are for the privileged, very few people can afford to buy a load of them to run them in on an industrial scale even then manufacturers mine the shit out of it with their latest toys before releasing it to the public, how is that serving anyone let alone decentralization?

[Aby Normal]

To ASIC or not to ASIC the question is now ...
To give major part of coin emission to a small group of large capital investors or to give a little bit to every one (the people) the question is now ...

ASIC folks, go fork ya'selves 

[jwinterm]

To ASIC or not to ASIC the question is now ...
To give major part of coin emission to a small group of large capital investors or to give a little bit to every one (the people) the question is now ...

ASIC folks, go fork ya'selves 

I think othe makes a good point in the GitHub discussion, re: botnets and hobbyists.

I think another point to consider is whether or not Monero is going to abandon its six month hard fork cycle at some point. It was my impression that over the next year or three the protocol would mature, and the constant hard forks/upgrades would be phased out. If you're planning on forking constantly to try and evade silicon this becomes impossible, and you impose constant upgrades on users, exchanges, services, etc.

[Anon136]

Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.

https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631

I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance.  I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets.  The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".

This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.

I believe the question at the heart of this idea is clear:  Is it desirable to stick to the original 1 CPU 1 vote vision?  And if so, is it FEASIBLE to continue to enforce that vision?  With ASICs already in the wild it is a very valid set of questions.

If the answer to either is NO, then arguably we should move towards not only allowing ASIC development, but making it as easy as possible.

Disclaimer - I have been fairly firmly in the "original vision" camp for a long time.  But over the years I have grown more amenable to considering other options.

Yea I agree. If you cant beat them, join them. But only when you are sure that you can not beat them. We should try this plan to routinely alter the proof of work and see how that goes first.

[denetci]

Is the PoW change code final, can we start working on pool/miner updates?
i am not sure but It is merged, so it should be final.

[Globb0]

Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.

https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631

I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance.  I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets.  The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".

This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.

I believe the question at the heart of this idea is clear:  Is it desirable to stick to the original 1 CPU 1 vote vision?  And if so, is it FEASIBLE to continue to enforce that vision?  With ASICs already in the wild it is a very valid set of questions.

If the answer to either is NO, then arguably we should move towards not only allowing ASIC development, but making it as easy as possible.

Disclaimer - I have been fairly firmly in the "original vision" camp for a long time.  But over the years I have grown more amenable to considering other options.

Yea I agree. If you cant beat them, join them. But only when you are sure that you can not beat them. We should try this plan to routinely alter the proof of work and see how that goes first.

and from what I have seen written, its supposed to be the threat of a change that is the deterrent.

after 1 fork from CN there will already be less incentive to risk it again.

[explorer]

Embracing ASICs would be a big FUCK YOU to everyone trying to distribute the network.  Seems to have worked well for bitcoin.  If you can't beat 'em, so be it.  But I expect at least an attempt.

[johnalan]

Embracing ASICs would be a big FUCK YOU to everyone trying to distribute the network.  Seems to have worked well for bitcoin.  If you can't beat 'em, so be it.  But I expect at least an attempt.

I wish the sell side on Polo would make an attempt. Fucking joke.

0.024 incoming it seems.

[Febo]

Is the PoW change code final, can we start working on pool/miner updates?
i am not sure but It is merged, so it should be final.

Yes of course the POW change is final. Discussion is there for next hardforks. Same as was discussion in past to do a POW change altho many was upset that was so sudden decision.   Binaries to update for everyone are usually out a week before hardfork happen. And usually there are some bugs and we get new few days latter.

[Hueristic]

To ASIC or not to ASIC the question is now ...
To give major part of coin emission to a small group of large capital investors or to give a little bit to every one (the people) the question is now ...

ASIC folks, go fork ya'selves  

I think othe makes a good point in the GitHub discussion, re: botnets and hobbyists.

I think another point to consider is whether or not Monero is going to abandon its six month hard fork cycle at some point. It was my impression that over the next year or three the protocol would mature, and the constant hard forks/upgrades would be phased out. If you're planning on forking constantly to try and evade silicon this becomes impossible, and you impose constant upgrades on users, exchanges, services, etc.

Just by doing it once proves that you are willing to do it again and adds a deterrent. AFA in the future, well that can be tackled then, right now we can get free HF with the Updates that are planned anyway.

Changing Algo was always in the future, it has to be.

Embracing ASICs would be a big FUCK YOU to everyone trying to distribute the network.  Seems to have worked well for bitcoin.  If you can't beat 'em, so be it.  But I expect at least an attempt.

I wish the sell side on Polo would make an attempt. Fucking joke.

0.024 incoming it seems.

c'est la vie

[johnalan]

To ASIC or not to ASIC the question is now ...
To give major part of coin emission to a small group of large capital investors or to give a little bit to every one (the people) the question is now ...

ASIC folks, go fork ya'selves  

I think othe makes a good point in the GitHub discussion, re: botnets and hobbyists.

I think another point to consider is whether or not Monero is going to abandon its six month hard fork cycle at some point. It was my impression that over the next year or three the protocol would mature, and the constant hard forks/upgrades would be phased out. If you're planning on forking constantly to try and evade silicon this becomes impossible, and you impose constant upgrades on users, exchanges, services, etc.

Just by doing it once proves that you are willing to do it again and adds a deterrent. AFA in the future, well that can be tackled then, right now we can get free HF with the Updates that are planned anyway.

Changing Algo was always in the future, it has to be.

Embracing ASICs would be a big FUCK YOU to everyone trying to distribute the network.  Seems to have worked well for bitcoin.  If you can't beat 'em, so be it.  But I expect at least an attempt.

I wish the sell side on Polo would make an attempt. Fucking joke.

0.024 incoming it seems.

c'est la vie

Maybe I spoke too soon!

https://twitter.com/CNBCFastMoney/status/973679299596292096

[Anon136]

Maybe I spoke too soon!

https://twitter.com/CNBCFastMoney/status/973679299596292096

From those comments it appears CNBC crypto class is a bit of a meme. Everyone there is saying, quite contrary to being bullish, it is literally the most bearish thing in the known universe.

[Globb0]

Changing Algo was always in the future, it has to be.

I like this the best.

We need once and for all to break the link to the scammy CryptoNote

From there forth we forge our own destiny.

That shit dragged us down far too long.

Phil

[Hueristic]

Changing Algo was always in the future, it has to be.

I like this the best.

We need once and for all to break the link to the scammy CryptoNote

From there forth we forge our own destiny.

That shit dragged us down far too long.

Phil

Thx

Maybe I spoke too soon!

https://twitter.com/CNBCFastMoney/status/973679299596292096

From those comments it appears CNBC crypto class is a bit of a meme. Everyone there is saying, quite contrary to being bullish, it is literally the most bearish thing in the known universe.

LOL, I was really happy I just got another @ .02715 !
It's tougher on binance to get a lower price i've found.

[HanvanBitcoin]

€200 a piece looks like a good buy to me for Monero Just bought myself a couple more.