• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Should we change the mining algorithm because of ASICs?

Should we change mining algorithm because of ASICs?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 21.3%
  • No

    Votes: 37 78.7%

  • Total voters
    47
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).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?

b7854f66_o.png
 
Since they exist already it is necessary to change the algorithm for mining. Otherwise it all will end up like in Bitcoin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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. :wink: 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? :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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)...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

Well... Bitcoin already can't change algorithm - miners (ASICs) completely control Bitcoin network...

Dash MN Operators can change (by voting) it now... but it'll be harder in the future (some of MN OPs will buy ASICs and won't vote agains their investments, ASIC's manufactures can buy % of MNs and so on... the later - the harder to change...)

But personally I don't know the right direction of solving this problem. It'll be nice to get opinion and strategy of eduffield regarding mining perspectives...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you would like to render existing ASICs useless, you would only have to swap ONE single bit in ONE of the hashing algorithms.
Sure they'd create a new ASIC, but that'll cost a lot each time.

True :p
I knew that but
- I never know what level of intelligence is on the other end
I thought it would be best to speak in - very simple terms- lol

I still luvs ya @crown :p
 
Hey UdjinM6, sorry for bothering, but what do you think about this, this, this and this threads? :smile:
There is a long post in Russian on bits.media which was also quoted here https://dashtalk.org/threads/jakoby-sozdali-asic-dlja-dash.8091/page-7#post-86125
Here's the same thoughts in English (at least it should be pretty close, I tried my best :smile:).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a very interesting but quite unexpected discussion, I have to say.
huh.png
I'll try to answer all the points that were put here one by one, at least those that I can remember. Sorry if I missed smth.

About situation in general. I can hardly understand the fear of ASICs unless you see it just as a threat to existing miners in terms of losing some share of their mining profit (but such is life). As for me - ASICs are a more expensive but more efficient specialized mining device. That basically means that full ROI time of the hardware itself is way longer but it has lower running cost (electricity, etc). Yes, if everything goes well for these first batches there surely will be more proposals with even more effective devices and even more "tasty" price/speed rates, soon they will start to fight not just the GPUs but also each other on the market and most likely this will also result in the end of GPU mining in Dash. That's exactly what happened in Bitcoin. But what is wrong with that? What is wrong from the point of evolution and security of the network? We could fear a new next gen GPU or a new optimized software then, and change algo when this happened (shall we?).

About algo change. The point of "incompatible" algo was also to avoid the situation when an older and more powerful network (bitcoin or litecoin for example) would attack us - if you dig a little bit in the history you can find a case where bitcoin (or one large pool to be precise) already killed a coin once. The task for X11 was to walk all the way from CPU through GPU and further but not only for the sake of the way itself and not even for the sake of "cold" mining hardware as a result of algo switching, but also to avoid such situation and have a nice period of natural growth. Dash is the most powerful X11 network right now (or at least I think so, correct me if I'm wrong) and it is (was? see next paragraph) quite hard to find even more power to attack it.

About "ASICs are going to kill the network". GPUs (and non-specialized devices in general) can mine whatever they want and from the network point of view they are quite unstable basis. If there is a disaster in the network (by disaster I meant a huge uncontrollable fork, double spend event etc that could ruin trust completely) GPUs will just switch to another network and/or algo or they can even be used "directly" - to play games. ASICs can do nothing but produce hashes for specific algos and they are highly incentivized to have a successful and growing network, otherwise their "specialized" investment are going to be burned in flames. (what I meant here is that GPUs don't really care about 51% and such or at least they are not that incentivized to do so)

About asic monopoly/centralization. I don't want to make miners feel bad, but they don't actually supply blocks to the network, pools do.
wink.png
So from the network point of view there is simply no difference either it's 10 miners with 4 GPUs each or 1 miner with 1 ASIC behind the pool - network knows nothing about shares because it simply doesn't see them. I mean, centralization risk always was and it is still there - in pools, and it has nothing to do with ASICs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
So let's get it straight. We had a centralized mining with pools for a long time already, though it was distributed among many GPUs (and human beings). Now with ASICs we still have pools but paired with poorly distributed mining (45% reward is distributed among few people invested in ASICs). These guys can either dump their tons of mined DASH or invest them in masternodes, slowly taking control of the whole network. Which option is better? I think both of them are bad.

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?

b7854f66_o.png
BTW, If you add secret ASICs in the network slowly you can supplant major part of GPUs without any increase in Hashrate. And the only sign of it would be a lowered profit for ordinary GPU miners which were exactly what happened according to russian miners forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So let's get it straight. We had a centralized mining with pools for a long time already, though it was distributed among many GPUs (and human beings). Now with ASICs we still have pools but paired with poorly distributed mining (45% reward is distributed among few people invested in ASICs). These guys can either dump their tons of mined DASH or invest them in masternodes, slowly taking control of the whole network. Which option is better? I think both of them are bad.
It will take at least 5-6 month only to return your investment (at current prices/hashrate). If you want to take over the network via masternodes it's much easier to buy them from the market imo.
 
It will take at least 5-6 month only to return your investment (at current prices/hashrate). If you want to take over the network via masternodes it's much easier to buy them from the market imo.
Prices will rise dramatically if you try to do that. While with secret ASICs you can do it slowly. But after you had substituted GPUs from mining prices can go down. So, in order to continue to get profit you should begin to sell your 'new' ASICs to other regular miners and/or invent secret ASICs 2.0 for yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I know the answer to this - but - just wanted to check

Let's say I bought all 50 of those ASIC
If I run each of them from a different IP on a P2P - no biggy right?
BUT - if I ran them all on a Personal Pool of my own - I could hi-jack the blockchain - right?
 
Prices will rise dramatically if you try to do that. While with secret ASICs you can do it slowly. But after you had substituted GPUs from mining prices can go down. So, in order to continue to get profit you should begin to distribute your 'new' ASICs to other regular miners and/or invent secret ASICs 2.0 for yourself.
6 months just to get ~2000$ or ~500 DASH back... to get 500 DASH in 6 month via exchanges you just have to buy ~80 DASH every month or ~3 DASH every day. I doubt if this can significantly affect the price...
"distribute your 'new' ASICs to other regular miners and/or invent secret ASIC 2.0" - ASICs didn't come from a thin air, everything has its cost - R&D, production, shipping etc and you need to cover it to make profit one way or another. What is wrong with that? If you can do it first/better/cheaper - just go ahead and make some money! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
I think I know the answer to this - but - just wanted to check

Let's say I bought all 50 of those ASIC
If I run each of them from a different IP on a P2P - no biggy right?
BUT - if I ran them all on a Personal Pool of my own - I could hi-jack the blockchain - right?
No. If you bought all 50 it would only add 20% to the network hashrate. Sorry, your plan to rule the world was foiled again!

Total Network = 70 Gh/s
All 50 ASICs = 19 Gh/s
 
Back
Top