ASIC smoke testing continues…such a Diff/HR rise over consecutive days won’t be all GPU especially now the price is stable.
I’d say that this difficulty increase is related to zec price and not asic.
7 Likes
I also agree on this.
1 Like
There are 2 possibilities here:
1.) The Z9 Asics have been on the zcash net for longer and this spike now is due zcash price rise. You know when the price rises many gpu miners come back, switch back and/or the multi-auto profit mining pools switched as well.
- There have not been many Asics bevor that, this would mean that everybody was wrong that many Asics have been on the network and they just put them on now.
I personally think 1.) is more likely and fits perfectly together with the gemini announcement and price spike … Just logical and common sense, enough you don’t wear blinkers, lol 
1 Like
I don’t have time to read this entire thread, but every few days I read a hundred comments or so.
Everything seems to have worked out okay from that schism. BTC and BCH folks each have their own community, blockchain, software, etc. The only residual problem is that they are fighting over the name “Bitcoin”. If they eventually tire of that, or if it settles into a stable state, then things’ll be even better. Note that the situation is very different with Zcash because the word “Zcash” and the golden Z logo are trademarked and can’t be used as a name for any random blockchain.
10 Likes
Zcash Cash sounds pretty stupid anyway…
…
I’m currently entertaining that thought - “Zcash Cash is the real Zcash!”
In be4 “Zcash Core”
Was this or was this not an excellent opportunity for BITMAIN to practice a double spend 51% attack on a smaller cap coin in the Equihash Algorithm?
This is no small issue. This is serious, ZCash Company!
3 Likes
Did I say they did it? No.
I said it was an “excellent opportunity for them to do it.” Didn’t I?
3 Likes
This is playing around with words. The headline you have choosen clearly indicates that you suggest it is a bitmain attack or you would have just choosen “there was a 51% attack” if you wanted to stay neutral …
2 Likes
“Puts on legalese glasses”.
It wouldn’t make sense for Bitmain to harm any specific crypto that they could mine or sell hardware for.
IMO a 51% attack would most likely be done by a government or large bank that is looking to test their ability to bring down a cryptocurrency. That’s a more plausible scenario than Bitmain attacking one of their own potential revenue streams.
Let’s cool it with the, “Bitmain is potentially the cause of everything bad” narrative.
2 Likes
I readed a bit into it on the BTG Forum, not much info about it at all.
But following simple logic, common sense and and being unbiased on such things i suggest someone to consider some other factors as well.
-
seriously, it doesn’t make sense Bitmain acting as a “hacker”, it’s a multi billion $ corporation and i doubt they would ever play around for some cents (yes, on their level its cents").
-
I’am personally not the blockchain expert and i’am even not sure if it was indeed a 51% attack or if it was something similar like the Verge Timestamp Bug exposed about 1 month ago. That’s a question for experts actually as there are only 5 posts on the BTG forum about it. Having in mind the XVG issue than back made it 50 pages in some days only…
-
But ok, if it’s indeed a 50% attack, than the attacker did not needed so much resources at all. At the time of the attack the BTG network was down to 24.79 MH/s , but one week earlier it was at 44+ MH/s, but it seems due less profitably a lot of GPU’s switched elsewhere leaving the network with about half of it’s hashrate, making it way easier for the attacker (whoever it is). Someone familar with prices on cloud services can make now a calculation how much funds and hashpower was needed to get that attack going. I doubt it’s some very high amount that leaves place only for bitmain as the attacker…
Actually, again thinking about it, this case proofs my believe that a network gets more vulnerable the higher the price is, the lower the network hashrate is and the higher the continously (unloyal) switching mining power is …
When miners on this 2000+ post thread speculate about Bitmain, without evidence, they are criticized.
When Siacoin write a blog post speculating that their competitor Bitmain “play dirty”, without evidence, they are not criticized but instead lauded.
Seems unfair if you ask me.
6 Likes
How did you come to that conclusion?
There are many posts on this forum about the play dirty issue that mention to be carefully with such asumption/accusation from a direct competitor. I can hear only some applause from the people that whatever Anti-Bitmain is like honey in their mouth, not even taking the time to analyze things further.
I do not think that your statements holds on this forum especially… Enough critical voices that don’t believe that Dirty Game issue just like that mentioned in the blog post by Sia …
P.S.: My personally stance is that speculation isn’t helpfull in most cases and i’am a believer that someone should always take speculations cautiously and always having in mind that it could be totally different at the end.
P.S.S.: And there is as well a difference about speculating about something or accusing someone. Let’s not forget that part as well as their is a bit of difference…
looking through those same legalize glasses
There is a difference though @bitcartel, Siacoin was talking from a first person account of facts and speculation. 99% of the postings here talking about Bitmain are third person speculation and hearsay. If the third person is going to speculate then it in my opinion they should start it off as such “IMO” or point to articles and threads of first person accounts
Here’s what REALLY concerns me:
XMR, BTG, ZEN, etc… who have come out in PUBLIC defiance to BITMAIN have made it CLEAR to their “community” they support them just as their community has supported them.
What’s also important is the developers of those coins also KNOW it’s community has “skin in the game.” Meaning, they know their community has “INVESTED” into the security of those coins with the hardware they use to mine. They (GPU Miners) were encouraged to INVEST in GPU’s to mine those coins BASED ON the declaration of ASIC-Resistance. So, they would rather come out in PUBLIC SUPPORT of THEIR COMMUNITY to “maintain” ASIC-Resistance and as soon as possible in order to ease the hearts and minds of their community regarding its investment(s) into said projects. It’s no different than the leading cause of divorce, which is FINANCES.
Most in this forum who are in support of ASIC’s have very little skin in the game {If any} compared to 90% of us in this forum who actually do have a LOT of skin in the game.
I appreciate the ZCash Foundation coming out in PUBLIC support of ASIC Resistance. However, it’s quite troubling [To those of us who actually do have a lot of skin in the game] to read and hear the “leader” of ZCash to publicly write and speak in words that try to rationalize support of ASIC’s and even the creation of specialized ASIC’s specific to ZCash. Even to publicly rationalize having ASIC’s and GPU’s on two chains with two 20% developer fees coming in. All of this is quite troubling to the community who HAS SKIN IN THE GAME. He SHOULD know this. The APPEARANCE is troubling, to say the least.
By the way, if you want to ban me for 6 months or any length of time for speaking about this [Just as cryptomined did in a video] GO FOR IT. I really don’t care. I’m all over the place in regards to social media and can speak about this elsewhere. Such as bitcoin talk, Twitter, Reddit, GitHub, etc…
APPEARANCE is everything! That’s why many successful corporations have PR divisions just for that (Appearance to its clients/users and investors).
ZCashCo. or ZCash Foundation should actually have a division devoted just to that declaration in the white paper - ASIC Resistance.
In closing, those of you who are pro-ASIC are more than welcome to show your support for ASIC’s. You have every right to. I’m not going to censor your thoughts/opinions on the matter. Just as I don’t want myself or anyone else in support of ASIC-Resistance to be censored. If I’m to be disliked by developers, moderators, etc… of ZCashCo or ZCash Foundation for sharing my opinion about the APPEARANCE of what’s occurring, so be it. I actually believe I’m doing you a favor [As a member of the community] letting you know how this actually APPEARS to those of us who have “skin in the game” (investors in hardware who have invested into this project).
EDIT: Zooko, do not assume I hate you, dislike you or despise you by voicing my opinion on the APPEARANCE of comments you’ve made on this subject of ASIC-Resistance. It’s not the case at all. Seriously, I really want to see ZEC succeed as a viable coin in this space for the betterment of humanity. I want to see you succeed as an individual. I want all the community to have success in life and its endeavors. So, try not to take my comments as a personal attack on you. Yes, I was harsh with my words early on in this thread around post 400 to 1800 and admittedly resolved to not stoop to name calling anymore.
7 Likes
Hi,
I had answered you post point by point, by it is far to emotionally charged for me to respond to it without the fear of upsetting you.
It is really annoying that you keep capitalising random words, and arguing from an emotional standpoint does not help progress this conversation. Emotion is far over represented in this thread. I am responding to try to get this back on track.
XMR, BTG, ZEN, etc… who have come out in PUBLIC defiance to BITMAIN have made it CLEAR to their “community” they support them just as their community has supported them.
Right, so what? dont get me wrong, I bought a load of vegas when monero forked. but monero are in a different place. The knee jerk “we hate bitmain, we are forking!” without doing due diligence on what the actual impact would be is a crazy risk, in fact it isnt a risk it is a straight up gamble. I’d rather try my luck at roullette.
Unplanned changes to the proof of work that may or may not fix the perceived issue cannot be the right way to solve anything. I understand why you feel the way you do, but shout at them (the foundation) for not doing this stuff two years ago. Don’t shout at them for finally getting around to it. It just seems bitter and detracts from your argument.
Miners are a subset of the community. The rest of the zcash community does not care where the hashrate comes from or how it gets there. Just like miners don’t care who buys their coins.
What’s also important is the developers of those coins also KNOW it’s community has “skin in the game.” Meaning, they know their community has “INVESTED” into the security of those coins with the hardware they use to mine.
I disagree, someone who buys 10 asics very much “have skin in the game”. What about that shop that accepts zcash? do they have “skin in the game”? Can you not see that zcash is not just about mining? sure, the currency doesn’t work without miners, but then again it also doesn’t work if no one accepts it as payment. Nor does it work if the PoW is broken. Who is to say one person is more valuable than another? Surely it is better to do an assessment on these things then go from there?
I personally would argue they have the biggest commitment to the merchants, the people who accept zcash as value. These are the people who stand to lose the most from a messed up PoW change or attack on the the network.
No I dont have any ASIC’s, yes I do mine on purpose bought gpus to mine zcash. However that does not make me an investor in zcash.
I hope this helps.
5 Likes
Where’s your evidence it was “knee jerk with no due diligence?” That’s your “opinion.”
1 Like
Where’s your proof this was unplanned. Just because it was not planned BEFORE it was determined ASIC’s were on the network does not mean it wasn’t properly “planned” and thought out AFTERWARDS.
1 Like