Should we change the mining algorithm because of ASICs?

[SnowHater]

There is long discussion about this problem in russian forum, so I don't know why it shouldn't be here already)

Please explain your choice in comments.

 

[TroyDASH]

Change it to what?

 

[MangledBlue]

X13 - X15 - Why not X21.......

LOL
I would think not.....
Pretty sure we had this debate at some point "back-in-the-day"

X11 has serious people looking at it - Why would we want to screw with the people that LIKE us?

 

[SnowHater]

X13 - X15 - Why not X21.......
X11 has serious people looking at it - Why would we want to screw with the people that LIKE us?

What was intentional purpose to implement X11? ASIC resistance. Now, if we have ASICs for X11 didn't this intention fail? BTW, I think this ASIC thing could be implemented more then half an year ago, and it wasn't shown to the public until now though. Could it be related to these very same 'serious people'?

 

[fible1]

If you look at the original White Paper, or perhaps it was an early discussion on the BCT forum, Evan makes the point that X11 is designed to be ASIC resistant in the short term, that he intended Dash to follow a similar cycle to Bitcoin and that ASIC's would eventually be developed. The idea was that ASIC's would not be available immediately so as to have more even distribution, but the development of ASIC's eventually was expected.

I think that for any algorithm implemented ASIC's are bound to be developed once it becomes profitable to do so, no need to be playing catch up; ASIC's are a good development for infrastructure maturation.

Pablo.

 

[SnowHater]

ASICs lead to mining centralization, and that's a bad thing. So, let's assume that 1st tier of 2-tiers network becomes more and more centralized with time. And this tier gets 45% of all blockreward still. So, what will happen in time? Yep, more and more masternodes will be bought by ASIC's miners. Hadn't it already happen? Who knows. And we have only 6 millions of coins out of 19. What I'm trying to say, that once one part of a system becomes centralized, the whole system tends to become centralized too. If we don't change the algorithm why not just settle a contract with one of ASICs manufacturer about its exclusive right to produce blocks for DASH for let's say 10% of all blockchain reward instead of 45% ?

 

[InTheWoods]

I am inclined to say yes. That's because after a change like this ASIC manufacturers will be discouraged to invest more resources into DASH ASIC manufacturing. The 2nd time around they'll know better than to invest into producing more DASH ASICs. Once bitten, twice shy, as they say.

 

[555007]

In my opinion ASICs will replace thousands of miner and potential DASH-activists to few ASIC miners. So DASH loses on "momentum".
Possible actions: announce that DASH will change algorithm every time if there is suspect that ASIC was developed. Nobody will waste 1 Mio USD to develop ASIC-scrap. And, as always, Masternode-voting (to do: avoid, that ASIC producers hold too many Masternodes )
Do not forget, ASIC developers never will allow somebody to earn on this. If they sell it, it means it is not really profitable any more.

 

[InTheWoods]

The ASICs also create a negative price dynamic in the market, aside from centralization.

Most of the ASIC miners tend to constantly dump the coins onto the market to recover the cost of their investment. The casual home miner is more of a mining enthusiast, more inclined to keep the coins.

I think we all want to see more long term Dash holders not a bunch of ASIC professional miners constantly dumping Dash.

 

[Balych]

Yep, more and more masternodes will be bought by ASIC's miners.

Most of the ASIC miners tend to constantly dump the coins onto the market to recover the cost of their investment.

So, they are dump or keep?

 

[InTheWoods]

So, they are dump or keep?

Dump, I think, because putting the coins is Masternodes is a riskier longer term play to recover their investment. Not all ASIC miners could afford it and would be willing to do it.

Most of the professional ASIC miners won't even bother learning about Masternodes. They just point their ASICs to the most profitable coin of the day to mine and dump away.

 

[nik443]

Balych, both scenarios are bad

 

[SnowHater]

Balych, both scenarios are bad

Totally agree with this.

 

[Reedych]

X13 - X15 - Why not X21.......

LOL
I would think not.....
Pretty sure we had this debate at some point "back-in-the-day"

X11 has serious people looking at it - Why would we want to screw with the people that LIKE us?

Why not X115? Seriously, we solve current problem for ~30-40 years

 

[oaxaca]

Most of the professional ASIC miners won't even bother learning about Masternodes. They just point their ASICs to the most profitable coin of the day to mine and dump away.

How about this?

Most of the professional GPU miners won't even bother learning about Masternodes. They just point their GPUs to the most profitable coin of the day to mine and dump away.

Double standard anyone?

 

[InTheWoods]

How about this?

Most of the professional GPU miners won't even bother learning about Masternodes. They just point their GPUs to the most profitable coin of the day to mine and dump away.

Double standard anyone?

Well at first, in the Bitcoin world, ASICs were individuals and small operations but as things matured they've become specialized big mining operations and individuals were pushed out. The Bitcoin mining space has gradually become more centralized with a handful of large key players that are now deciding the fate of Bitcoin.

I think the profile is very different. I was mining with GPU myself at some point in time but these days I don't bother anymore.

 

[MangledBlue]

What was intentional purpose to implement X11? ASIC resistance. Now, if we have ASICs for X11 didn't this intention fail? BTW, I think this ASIC thing could be implemented more then half an year ago, and it wasn't shown to the public until now though. Could it be related to these very same 'serious people'?

Look up the word: resistance

We are not ASIC PROOF

 

[nik443]

Oaxaca, if ASIC manufacturers and buyers worried about Dash masternodes they would buy. Price comparable.

 

[oaxaca]

Well at first, in the Bitcoin world, ASICs were individuals and small operations but as things matured they've become specialized big mining operations and individuals were pushed out. The Bitcoin mining space has gradually become more centralized with a handful of large key players that are now deciding the fate of Bitcoin.

Show me some proof that GPU miners mining DASH are "mine and hold" instead of "mine and dump". ALL miners that are mining coins are "mine and dump" until proven otherwise. Every day X number of DASH is added to the total supply. Every day Y DASH are purchased using fresh money into the system. If Y is greater than X ("mine and hold"), the price of DASH would keep going up. It remains relatively stable. Because GPUers are just as likely as ASICers to just dump. No difference.

 

[nik443]

oaxaca, for example, I did not throw off the coins obtained on the GPU and translate them into masternodes

 

[SnowHater]

Show me some proof that GPU miners mining DASH are "mine and hold" instead of "mine and dump". ALL miners that are mining coins are "mine and dump" until proven otherwise. Every day X number of DASH is added to the total supply. Every day Y DASH are purchased using fresh money into the system. If Y is greater than X ("mine and hold"), the price of DASH would keep going up. It remains relatively stable. Because GPUers are just as likely as ASICers to just dump. No difference.

Why would you invest your money in the cryptocurrency which is tended to be centralized? And if you mine secretly with ASIC (or maybe with ASIC 2.0 for the moment already) you know that for sure. While the main value of any cryptocurrency is its decentralization level (security).

 

[oaxaca]

Why would you invest your money in the cryptocurrency which is tended to be centralized? And if you mine secretly with ASIC (or maybe with ASIC 2.0 for the moment already) you know that for sure.

Tended to be centralized? Pure conjecture.
ASIC 2.0? Pure bullshit.

Look at the network hashrate. It hasn't changed for a long, long time. Where are these secret ASICS?

 

[nik443]

Since they exist already it is necessary to change the algorithm for mining. Otherwise it all will end up like in Bitcoin.

 

[splawik21]

oaxaca, for example, I did not throw off the coins obtained on the GPU and translate them into masternodes

but from the other hand I have some miners friends who does not hold coins at all and sell them as soon as they see their wallets, even though they know about MNs ...

 

[nik443]

Yes , of course there are . But in any case, the more miners quantitatively - the better for coins

 

[SnowHater]

Tended to be centralized? Pure conjecture.

So ASICs are good for decentralization? That seems to me as even more conjecture.

ASIC 2.0? Pure bullshit.
Look at the network hashrate. It hasn't changed for a long, long time. Where are these secret ASICS?

Maybe you're right here. But again, it can happen in future. And I think we should prevent this scenario, especially having the profound life-lesson with Bitcoin.

 

[nik443]

If all the miners are bad investors ...
might think that it would be advantageous to reduce it to 1% reward ?

 

[SnowHater]

How about this?

Most of the professional GPU miners won't even bother learning about Masternodes. They just point their GPUs to the most profitable coin of the day to mine and dump away.

Double standard anyone?

I didn't mine with CPU, I didn't mine with GPU, I do not mine with ASIC. But I think that world distribution of CPUs and GPUs is much more even then distribution of ASICs. And I believe that true value of mining isn't in its hashrate rather in its level of decentralization (distribution among many human beings).

BTW, all of my 200-DASH-fortune I've bought on Poloniex for $800 fiat)

Hey UdjinM6, sorry for bothering, but what do you think about this, this, this and this threads?

 

[buster]

I think we're jumping the gun here on changing the algorithm. Perhaps down the line in the future if 6 ASIC farms take over and mining becomes centralized then we can start thinking about changing the algorithm. ASIC's can help our current problem of centralized mining (2 pools own 90%+ of hash rate) so I say at this moment they are good for the network.

 

[alex-ru]

During the last week I've seen a lot of criticism from Russian miners. And it's not just at the point that some of them are depriving of earnings with X11 ASICs. But the fact that many of them was mining for many years and tracked the evolution of Bitcoin's minig "in their own skin" - and they do not want a repeat of the same scenario with DASH (those of them who cares about Dash, who doesn't care - just jumps to another coin, no problem)...