[quote="Tonic1080, post:2521, topic:27353,]
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.
[/quote]
I agree to this, but i as well think there is another problem. Current Asic Resistant projects are based on what is now on the market or what they think is enough. I’am pretty sure that the next generation mining asics will be far more adoptable and i have my doubts that a lot of programmers working on asic resistance have this not in mind as well. I could be wrong of course, just my doubts, only time will tell and show if in some time a given forked coin will have the same problem again or not.
[quote="Tonic1080, post:2521, topic:27353,]
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?[/quote]
I would like to put in here 2 cases:
1.) The Baikal BK-X has been several times updated and is now able to mine 7 different algos, with 2 more coming, makes 9. So this one is not an Asic anymore? What is it than?
2.) The recent shipped B3 with the new Sophon BM1680 chip has got an update the other day, improving it’s hashrate with a whopping 30%. While it has nothing directly to do with changing algos, i think a lot can be done with updates and someone should not forget that the mining asics are as well advancing and dealing with whatever not to get better and better. Just logical after the manufactors would like to sell them.
[quote="Tonic1080, post:2521, topic:27353,]
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. [/quote]
On this one i totally disagree with you. A progress should always be meassured on the field it’s used and not in generally. Your argument would be true if you compare an asic with everyday usage, but it’s not intended to that.
A mining Asic is intended just to mine and is doing this just better than whatever current hardward. So it’s a progress in the field of mining.
Following your argument i could say that the newest smartphone is a step back as my PC is way better in performing the apps. Sure, but the smartphone wasn’t intended to be a PC, so isn’t a mining asic made to render graphics at home, just as an example.
[quote="Tonic1080, post:2521, topic:27353,]
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.[/quote]
You should than add as well “do we agree to protectionsim”, “restrictions on who when why should mine”, “is it ok to have a closed/restriced market in a decentralized world/project”, and many more questions of course…