Should we change the mining algorithm because of ASICs?

[SnowHater]

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)_/¯

So, mining is becoming more centralized here. Will we do something about it? Yes, we'll try to make some money out of it :grin:. No we won't change the algorithm to prevent centralization because it is inevitable, such is life.

Ok, we had discussed many pros confused and cons of ASICs (mining centralization). But what about pros and cons of algorithm changing or mining reward decrease? What drawbacks could it cause?

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

How do we know that 50 are all of the ASICs for now?

 

[MangledBlue]

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

WEEEELLLLLLLLLLL damn!!
lol

It's time for PLAN Z

 

[UdjinM6]

So, mining is becoming more centralized here.
....

I have a bad feeling like I'm talking into nowhere....
IT'S NOT MINERS. IT'S POOLS

 

[SnowHater]

I have a bad feeling like I'm talking into nowhere....
IT'S NOT MINERS. IT'S POOLS

Pool is point of failure in terms of decentralization, that is true. They can attack blockchain with double spend and something like that. But pools redistribute their reward to the miners, don't they? So pools are partially decentralized in terms of getting profit despite the fact that they charge a fee.

 

[HinnomTX]

Back in the day there was an official Darkcoin pool, and it was quite successful at attracting hashes until the server was hacked, IIRC. Maybe if we brought it back we could entice some miners away from the 2 big pools.

 

[SnowHater]

Back in the day there was an official Darkcoin pool, and it was quite successful at attracting hashes until the server was hacked, IIRC. Maybe if we brought it back we could entice some miners away from the 2 big pools.

What about creating new two or three pools with strictly 0 fees and budget them directly from the budgeting system? We have dash.org, why not dashpool1.org, dashpool2.org and dashpool3.org?

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

So if we assume that 70 Gh/s of the whole network right now is equivalent to 200 ASICs, then all the security it presents is about 200 * $2000 = $400 000 of worth. And that is equivalent for 400 mastenodes. Why should miners get exact reward as 3500 masternodes do? The right reward would be 5%. And again with the hashrate gradually rising to 70*3500/400 = 600 Gh/s with more ASICs come we could rise miners reward back to 45%.

 

[oaxaca]

What about creating new two or three pools with strictly 0 fees and budget them directly from the budgeting system? We have dash.org, why not dashpool1.org, dashpool2.org and dashpool3.org?

Go right ahead and submit a proposal.

In the meantime please use P2Pool.

 

[TanteStefana]

Wasted effort, in my opinion as mining will soon have no say in what is included into the blockchain. There will be no threat from miners controlling too much hash, as they can't insert anything into the blockchain that hasn't been locked by masternodes first. Lets just get Evolution finished ASAP. Or at least the part where all transactions are processed by quorums.

 

[SnowHater]

Wasted effort, in my opinion as mining will soon have no say in what is included into the blockchain. There will be no threat from miners controlling too much hash, as they can't insert anything into the blockchain that hasn't been locked by masternodes first. Lets just get Evolution finished ASAP. Or at least the part where all transactions are processed by quorums.

Why do we still need miners then? Let's create a private blockchain with only masternodes having ability to mine (or mint) blocks. Maybe some restrictions to their minimum and maximum hash power are needed. BTW, private blockchain maybe not a bad idea.

 

[TanteStefana]

The hash they come up with will be used to randomly select which masternode goes into which quorum for each block. There may also be other selection criteria, such as age of MN, etc... all to help make it more and more impossible for a quorum to be stacked with corroborating MNs.

combo of multi level network with arbitrary criteria should make it truely impossible to ever make it possible for a quorum to e controlled by anyone (all 10 MNs would be required)

 

[SnowHater]

The hash they come up with will be used to randomly select which masternode goes into which quorum for each block. There may also be other selection criteria, such as age of MN, etc... all to help make it more and more impossible for a quorum to be stacked with corroborating MNs.

combo of multi level network with arbitrary criteria should make it truely impossible to ever make it possible for a quorum to e controlled by anyone (all 10 MNs would be required)

So let's say I have 51% of hashrate. The next thing I want to do is to choose my favourite 10 masternodes to do all the job constantly. Is it possible?

 

[Miner237]

Why do we still need miners then? Let's create a private blockchain with only masternodes having ability to mine (or mint) blocks. Maybe some restrictions to their minimum and maximum hash power are needed. BTW, private blockchain maybe not a bad idea.

If all the individual miners would just mine via Pool2Pool peers then we could remove the centralization of single large pools like coinmine pool.

I am sure if someone made 50 ASIC to sell they made another 50 that are live, you can watch the global hash go from 70Ghs to 130Ghs in a matter of hours. This is not a bot net running CPU miners. These ASIC have been out there since 2015 and will only now start to be decentralized since anyone with 5 bitcoins can buy one.

 

[SnowHater]

Why would you start all your ASICs simultaneously to get hashrate from 70Ghs to 130Ghs? You can do it gradually so they supplant regular GPUs without hashrate peak.

 

[Miner237]

Why would you start all your ASICs simultaneously to get hashrate from 70Ghs to 130Ghs? You can do it gradually so they supplant regular GPUs without hashrate peak.

i'm just saying i think someone has been running these for quite some time in private, and either coin switching or running up the diff and turning them off....and repeating it.. we need more of these in the hands of individuals so that hash rate stays distributed. But ending mining all together is not happening in the near term..

 

[Bugeater]

Whatever we decide, we cannot ever allow x11 to go on "just because that is the way it is" need discussion if we need to change and from what I am hearing if we can eliminate ASIC forever, lets change every 6-months or year.

 

[SnowHater]

i'm just saying i think someone has been running these for quite some time in private, and either coin switching or running up the diff and turning them off....and repeating it.. we need more of these in the hands of individuals so that hash rate stays distributed. But ending mining all together is not happening in the near term..

If we agree on that, then we can't be sure that there aren't already ASICs 2.0 on their way. Yep, I'm a paranoid :grin:. Wouldn't it be better to change the algorithm from time to time to prevent this whole thing?

 

[Miner237]

Yes x11 ASIC v2s are being made, the vendor admits this. But higher end miners add stability and value into the crypto currency. Look back at litecoin prices before and after Scrypt ASIC, look at bitcoin ASIC now, 5Th miners are available at the price of the 500Mhs SHA256 miners just a few years ago. The problem is that they need to not all be centralized, more people need to buy them and run them from home....

 

[SnowHater]

Yes x11 ASIC v2s are being made, the vendor admits this. But higher end miners add stability and value into the crypto currency. Look back at litecoin prices before and after Scrypt ASIC, look at bitcoin ASIC now, 5Th miners are available at the price of the 500Mhs SHA256 miners just a few years ago. The problem is that they need to not all be centralized, more people need to buy them and run them from home....

I don't think that high end ASICs adds price stability. It maybe pushes prices up for some time but then dump will come eventually. Litecoin is no more second coin on the market, Ethereum is, and it hasn't ASICs yet, AFAIK. Bitcoin prices don't rise for quite a long time too.

Special hardware with big energy consumption tends to be expensive and centralized. It is natural. Why don't we have personal minipower stations yet? Because they can't be as profitable as big old power stations do. Same goes to factories. Same goes to mining. If you want decentralization you shouldn't allow special hardware to take part in it.

 

[UdjinM6]

I don't think that high end ASICs adds price stability. It maybe pushes prices up for some time but then dump will come eventually. Litecoin is no more second coin on the market, Ethereum is, and it hasn't ASICs yet, AFAIK. Bitcoin prices don't rise for quite a long time too.
...

I don't think prices in crypto has anything to do with mining on GPU or ASICs - it's pure speculation on a low liquidity market. If you want prices to rise you need to bring more liquidity i.e. bring more people who are interested (and hopefully who are mostly interested to buy and hodl/use). Litecoin failed simply because its base was weak - "we are silver to bitcoin gold", "we have 4 times faster blocks", "we don't need any further development". And then came hundreds of crypto with interesting features, fast blocks and ongoing development. Why holding Litecoin? I dumped all my ltc very soon after I had a bit. It still has high liquidity for historical reasons though - many trader are still waiting for the moon ($90) and suspect some evil forces for such "low" prices. Imo its price is $0. :grin:
Ethereum is high because 1) it's quite interesting concept, 2) they had millions $$ for development and PR and 3) it's premined (I have no idea why coinmarketcap refuses to show Ethereum via "** Significantly Premined"). Market cap is "# of coins" x "price", so obviously ~72 mil premined coins out of 77 mil coins currently issued does matter for marketcap calculations.

...
Special hardware with big energy consumption tends to be centralized. It is natural. Why don't we have personal power stations yet? Because they can't be as profitable as big old power stations do. Same goes to mining. If you want decentralization you shouldn't allow special hardware to take part in it.

Special hardware has 700 Watt consumption currently - that's a normal gamer's PC these days, not a big deal. Speaking of personal power stations - we just live in the wrong place Solar power for example is here for many people already.

 

[Miner237]

I don't think that high end ASICs adds price stability. It maybe pushes prices up for some time but then dump will come eventually. Litecoin is no more second coin on the market, Ethereum is, and it hasn't ASICs yet, AFAIK. Bitcoin prices don't rise for quite a long time too.

I'm not saying it creates price stability, i was just saying if more people buy these ASIC and use them personally it would add security from one entity having a ton of mining power. What we need is people to buy them which it seems they are the ibelink is not available on the site for purchase anymore. Even more so we need the vendors making them to limit no more than 1 or 2 per address and force them to mine p2p.....