I second that motion, Sir.
EXCELLENT RESPONSE…
When I read his first response, I could “tell” they did not understand English very well. Which had me wondering if he even understood what he was reading and the summary that was made available in the video.
Thanks for your clarification and contribution!
Changing the parameters might brick the Z9 minis but a new, secret ASIC could quickly be developed once that is announced. This would make GPU miners happy but it would actually undermine fair coin distribution.
I think the underlying thing that most pro-ASIC are ignoring/getting wrong is regarding the investment incentive of “just make a new one secretly that will get around the changes”.
Of course algo changes will be useless if they aren’t considered a regular part of the blockchain management. For example, if there is a 6-month window between changes to the algo which are only known by the core dev team, then the incentive to make another ASIC by a 3rd party for that short window is significantly reduced.
Then people start saying “well, then they could develop an adjustable ASIC that can change with the algo change”. Well, then it’s not really an “ASIC” anymore is it? That is already possible for a lot cheaper, they are called CPUs and GPUs. A non-algo-specific chip set has to give up a lot of it’s hardware capabilities to be more universal (CPUs are pretty universal and GPU is really just a CPU with dedicated hardware and memory support, of course very simplified explanation).
ASICs are NOT a progressive step forward in technology, they are technically a step backwards. A universal and energy efficient CPU is significantly more advanced technology than a dedicated chip set that can only run one algorithm. Now getting a chip-set that can get the sort of performance that ASICs see WITHOUT being algo-specific…that would be a progression of technology. That is why GPU miners don’t have an issue with nVidia or AMD developing mining-dedicated cards. The development of that sort of versitile technology wouldn’t be specific to one company like Bitmain, we would see it used across the market in different industries and multiple manufacturers.
ASIC and Bitmain are synonymous right now. The theoretical argument of “generic ASIC vs. generic GPU” (which is what pro-ASIC seems to keep falling back to) is completely irrelevant as it is not the reality of the current market. The real discussion currently is “do we want a Bitmain run network or a GPU network”. If you cannot legitimately say “yes, I want a Bitmain centralized network” then you’re not really pro-ASIC in the current market.
The whole point of the saicoin article is that they want to be theoretically pro-ASIC but it’s not possible in the current market. This makes they inherently NOT pro-GPU (bias view against GPU as they want to be in the business of ASIC).
edits: formatting for easier read because of a long post
2 Likes
I can agree with that but edit one thing. “ZCash will do its best to maintain an algorithm mineable with commodity hardware (GPU’s) competitively with ASIC’s that might be developed for processing PoW in order to maintain a level playing field.”
Of course, this is what one would believe the term “ASIC Resistance” implies. But like you said,
The “concept” behind PROG PoW is evolutionary in my opinion.
It’s important for any PoW coin with the mandate for ASIC resistance to have a department/division within its ranks to have a mission statement [Like the one beginning this response to your statement] working towards that end. If an ASIC-Resistant coin is to maintain consensus within it’s ASIC-Resistant PoW community, it would be imperative to have another ASIC-Resistant PoW algorithm on standby [As a form of redundancy] in the event it is determined the previous PoW is no longer ASIC-Resistant.
ZCash Company may not like the sound of the idea of possibly dividing up more or their developer fees amongst more developers to secure that end. However, doing so would bring about consensus and strength community.
To be honest, I’m beginning to believe too little has been done and it may be too late. ZCash Company and ZCash Foundation have DROPPED THE BALL on this one. Apparently, no one at Company or Foundation saw a need to have development in place to maintain consensus and community towards ASIC Resistance.
This does not look good at all. This has created doubt instead of TRUST in the minds of many in the community. There has been no formal apology by ZCash Company to my knowledge. Many of us in the community feel like we are perceived as PESTS within ZCash Company to be squashed underfoot.
I keep saying this but APPEARANCE means everything! Those of you at ZCash Company and ZCash Foundation need to come together to tell Zooko, “You need to chill out with the continued talk of two chains, etc…” But the more I think about it, it’s been beneficial to SEE where Zooko stands now. WHY? Because it’s becoming more apparent each day that I probably should not TRUST this project and move on to another privacy coin who actually WILL MAINTAIN TRUST and CONSENSUS with its COMMUNITY.
1 Like
Let me get this straight, you just said, “So, if you COUD NOT mine ZCash, you would mine another coin.” You then “spin” it to make it look like he would never truly support the project and only had personal interest in mind. That’s further from the truth!
If a coin made a declaration of ASIC Resistance to earn the TRUST of a community violates that TRUST by going back on their declaration by welcoming ASIC’s, you expect them to continue mining despite the fact their ROI went from a few months to several years or never? REALLY? Would you spend tens of thousands of dollars on hardware (GPU’s) to mine a PoW coin that does not have your best interest in mind as a GPU miner and appear more loyal to ASIC’s that would drive your ROI into the ground? Would you continue to MAINTAIN this hardware (GPU’s) with little to no return on your investment; or even negative return?
I’m sorry, but what you’re implying is totally unreasonable. I would honestly appreciate it if people in the forum would stop trying to find a means to attack one’s “assumed” motivations behind mining and focus on the task at hand. Which is maintaining the declaration of ASIC Resistance. Doing so would strengthen community and encourage consensus.
2 Likes
Considering asics have been on the network for quite a while now. I don’t really see the point.
I roid already and still believe in the project, the asic resistant part is a nice selling point but no king rules forever. I bought 6 z9 to continue my belief in a truly anonymous crytpo. Now if zooko says no more anon then i’ll be the first one to raise the pitchfork. Sapling or bust.
The GPUs I have will go off into what ever coin embraces PROG until those get an ASIC such is life.
The circle is complete.
2 Likes
A good analogy to what Zcash promised would be products that are “water resistant”. This doesn’t mean that they will be completely waterproof and waterproofing has a certain depths that it is no longer possible.
Equihash turned out to not be great at being ASIC resistant. Remaining ASIC resistant in a quickly developing environment where large players want to develop a secret/private ASIC is turning out to be extremely difficult - similar to a product trying to be waterproof at greater depths.
The Zcash foundation has heard your voice and they are putting resources towards finding the best solution.
Last, I have to make a point that the Z9 mini currently has much more potential ROI than buying a new 1080ti gpu (or 14 of them). There is really nothing lacking in terms of potential profitability.
The difference is that buying an ASIC involves taking a risk, a larger risk that some gpu miners here are probably uncomfortable with. ASICs don’t have great resale value and will eventually be obsolete. Risk is the big differentiator here. Some miners won’t want to take risks moving forward and that is their choice if the foundation finds that remaining ASIC resistant isn’t possible.
3 Likes
All while IGNORING THE FACT that ONE (Centralized) manufacturer holds majority manufacturing and selling of said rig? REALLY?
1 Like
The RISK of CENTRALIZED mining!
1 Like
There are reports of other Equihash ASICs, whether or not those are substantiated, I believe one could be made for ~10 million according to some estimates. So there could already be secret ASICs that we don’t know about.
Flypool having centralized control of hashrate is a larger concern that the evolution of mining hardware, in my opinion.
TRUST is slowly dissipating to the point where it will not matter what ZCash Foundation “findings” are. Especially, with Zooko continuing to erode TRUST by continuing to market in favor of Pro-ASIC in other threads.
I’m CERTAIN of it when comparing hash rates and other things.
I can agree to a certain degree with that statement. I only disagree with the “larger” comment.
Cryptocurrencies are not about trust. They are about not needing to trust. Further, you’re confused that Zooko somehow controls the Zcash foundation. The Zcash foundation is an entirely different, independently funded non-profit organization. They operate independently. That’s why the Zcash foundation and the Zcash company had two separate announcements each with a different approach moving forward.
1 Like
ROFL…
The fact they are a currency most certainly brings TRUST into the equation. So, you TRUST “ANY” Crypto Currency that comes along?
1 Like
And that combination appears to be divided [Both saying opposite things] in other threads. The leader of one (Zooko) actively promoting two chains and ASIC’s.
Sounds like a community divided if you ask me. Sounds like a step backwards and not forward if you ask me.
One actively promoting ASIC while the other actively promoting ASIC Resistance. One moving FORWARD with ASIC Resistance and one moving FORWARD with Pro-ASIC by actively promoting it.
1 Like
Generally, the top cryptocurrencies (like Zcash, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum) are decentralized and trust-less. Zcash allows for private, non-reversible transactions. It fits the bill.
I’m sorry to say this, but in the grand scheme of things miners don’t really matter. Mining is just one way of facilitating transactions through proof of work (stick, carrot). Eventually this will probably go to proof of stake to remove the benefit of economies of scale that larger miners have with cheaper electricity costs.
1 Like
I trust zookos vision for zcash and believe he has the long term health of zcash in mind.
There is no such thing as decentralization as far as I’m concerned. I frankly don’t care about that anymore as it seems no matter how good you make a lock someone will always break it.
True Anonymity is what I want. A coin this good and zcash is only just getting started, I wish I could have bought 50 z9s.
1 Like
So miners don’t really matter. When zcash started then why did zcash need miners? I do not believe that when zcash started and had no miners. Zcash would of gone no where!
1 Like