I also agree, he deserves his freedom of speech, and he does a good job educating the community.
I will review this decision tomorrow, in consultation with other moderators.
(Can’t do it now because it’s 1:50 am here.)
Thank you, Daira. Much appreciated.
Thank you for your contribution to the community!
First off: I’m not trying to argue or create division. I simply have a question…
What exactly was it he did to deserve being banned for 6 months? All I’m seeing in your post is about “you” and not the reason why he was banned; especially for 6 months.
To me, all you would have to do is explain WHY you did what you did [With the edits] and that’s the end of it. Which means, you gave your rebuttal and that’s the end of it.
No need for banning someone you correct with a rebuttal. That would also allow them to offer an apology or ask further questions to come to an understanding…
Again, I’m not trying to argue with you, demean you, disrespect you, etc… I simply HUMBLY request for cryptomined to be re-instated with full privileges once again. If there is something in the discussion I missed, then my apologies. I’m simply trying to make sure a decision was not made out of “emotions.” Especially, if that decision had to do with something the moderator was doing and may or may not have a conflict of interest. No?
Cryptomined, may have simply misunderstood the INTENT of WHY you were doing what you were doing with the edited posts. Simply provide your “intent” as to “why” you did what you did [as a rebuttal] and give him the opportunity to respond with an apology, etc… without banning him.
That was my 2 cents… Again, not trying to be difficult or create division. I have a lot of respect for CryptoMined and have known him for a while. I’ve known him long before I got involved with this forum.
While i personally think that 6 months might be a too long ban time and 1 month would have been ok as well for a 1st bann (just talking generally) .
I readed the post from shawn and he has it’s valid reasons. I admit that when i watched the video my eyebrows went up as well.
The problem seems in this Asic Discussion that many people can not stay fair and respect other peoples views, minds, arguments, whatever not. Even going that far to spread false and wrong information, to offend, to attack personally and so on.
This said i personally think a couple of other peoples should have gotten or get a 24 hour ban for such useless behavour, but i think as well that the 6 month ban is too long and should at least be seriously reduced, not at least for showing good will. Eventually Cryptominds could as well edit the video to make things right. Just a suggestion …
I’m with you on that, boxalex.
You and I may or may not be on the same page in regards to ASIC-Resistance. However, we can be on the same page on other things we discuss. I want fairness just as you do. That means not only fairness from Shawn but the same fairness from CyptoMined. That “fairness” could have been to investigate with questions first before drawing a conclusion. I too have been guilty of similar circumstances I’m sure. I’m also quick to apologize in the event I’m out of line or wrong.
I agree, it’s important to gather EVERYTHING you possibly can on a subject before coming to a conclusion on that subject and spreading it all over the world. Maybe he thought he had investigated fully. I honestly don’t know the circumstances.
I don’t want to necessarily choose sides here without fully knowing what the reasoning is behind the 6 month ban. Hence, my question(s) to Shawn for the reason behind the 6 month ban.
Personally, I think there is a very slippery slope that should be avoided regarding asking him to edit a youtube video.
Getting reprimanded for direct actions taken on the forum is one thing. I believe anything he posts on YouTube is outside the bounds and responsibility of moderators of this forum and as such is way out of line to ask him to change it. I wouldn’t want to be a part of such a community. It’s like banning people from the forum because of their facebook page or twitter posts. If there is a violation made on those platforms it should be handled on those platforms.
While i personally absolutly agree in general with what you wrote, i think it’s a bit different when it comes to intentionally withholding information and/or missleading information. IF the information was correct than no doubt that you are absolutly right and i would as well see it as forced censorship, but this seems not to be the case.
I was actually talking about goodwill from both sides and i did NOT say the should be asked to do it, but if a given statement is not correct in a public video than i think the least someone should do is to correct it himself and showing his goodwill as well.
I’am a believer that when both sides in a given confrontation make a step back and show goodwill it’s the best solution without having one of the sides losing their face/proud. But of course, that’s just my opinion and eventually a good advice on how to solve the situation best…
could this be implemented before the first ASIC arrive?
Can what be implemented before the first ASIC arrives?
NOTE: If you were to “highlight” [With your cursor] a statement or question, you should see a “Quote” symbol above it. Click that quote icon that appears after highlighting text and it should pop up in the text box for you to continue any remarks or questions you might have on what you have quoted.
sorry about that, I’m talking about the ProgPOW, I don’t fully understand it. from what I understand, it will maximize using other feature of a GPU, so in a way an ASIC needs to turn into a GPU to be efficient in mining.
Apologies for the delay. I’ve been working on the remodel of my mining room. Which see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2865914.msg37537771#msg37537771
From the way I understand it, it makes it practically impossible for ASIC’s to have the power efficiency they desire while increasing the hash rate. Yes, they might be able to get 1.1 or 1.2 to 1 in regards to efficiency but not enough gains to justify being able to sell them at huge profits and/or be able to have a huge advantage. It pretty much keeps ASIC’s [That may be created] on a level playing field with GPU’s.
So, the only way an ASIC manufacturer can really benefit is if they can build their ASIC’s substantially cheaper than GPU’s.
If anyone else would like to chime in on this subject regarding PROG Proof of Work algorithm, feel free to do so.
PROG POW LINK: https://github.com/ifdefelse/ProgPOW
Video “CryptoMined” put together on PROG POW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=P6B-ZCyP6K8
That is exactly what I was thinking of. This way ASICs would become a healthy alternative to GPUs and would help to secure mining equipment market instead of destroying it.
Totally agree with you on that statement!!!
Someone using very powerful ASICs just launched a 51% attack against the Bitcoin Gold network.
I assume it’s Bitmain, since they are the only ones who are confirmed to have Equihash ASICs powerful enough to do this. It’s probably revenge for Bitcoin Gold’s desire to fork away from Equihash (and who can blame BTG for wanting to get away from this?).
Here’s proof of the attack:
- The block times are faster than is possible for GPU miners to find at a high difficulty, and the difficulty keeps rising.
Blocks mined on MiningPoolHub, a big public pool, are orphaned: https://bitcoin-gold.miningpoolhub.com/index.php?page=statistics&action=blocks
Blocks mined on Suprnova, another big public pool ,are orphaned:
- All of the orphaned blocks go to an address that just started mining BTG right when the attack started:
This is an extremely dangerous consequence of ASIC mining. The fact that Bitmain is selling miners to the public does NOT mean that they won’t save enough for themselves to have at least 51% of the hashrate for all coins. A coin that has ASIC mining is susceptible to a 51% attack an any minute.
Zcash needs to fork if it doesn’t want this to suffer the same fate.
Here’s the account that launched the attack:
How do you come to the conclusion that these are Asics?
The Bitcoin Gold network has ONLY 38.84 Mh/s hashrate, you do not need much of powerfull Asics to launch an attack there in my opinion.
I didn’t search for more info right now, but will do so, but when you write about Asics Attack, Revenge, you should provide some evidience and proof at very least, not?
Bitmain is not the only one running ASICS.
There are actually confirmed private operations running equihash ASICS and fpga’s
There is no proof that is Bitmain. That is slander
It looks like the first batch of Z9’s just sold out. Second batch allows 100 Z9’s per purchase.