If they are 1080 Tis and the assumptions remain the same, then this is the effect:
25 million spent
30 MH added to the network
This is a good example of why GPU mining is so fair – most modern video cards are priced identically in terms of hashes per dollar. If anything, the budget cards are more efficient. This opens up mining to so many people, even those with an average PC.
By the way, you’d have to assume that GPUs were sold at less than 5% of their retail price to get the same effect on the network as ASICs.
GPU mining is far more fair and decentralized than ASIC mining.
Actually the idea of the nvida/cointed wasn’t about who how much adds in terms of difficulty or hashrate to a project, even less we don’t know where these mine anyway.
The idea was that given GPU mining facilities get superior contracts, better prices, special mining gpu designs, better service and immediate shipping and whatever not privilegs. That was the point as i wasn’t aware until today that there are even special mining gpu’s available only for contract partners.
And i mention this only because so far Nvidia/AMD are always called the innocent fair whatever partners. Dude, we even have NO idea what these special designed gpu’s are, but only wild guessing.
And the argument of defending a company that mines with secret unknown 125,000 gpu’s (at least) doesn’t mean they can centralize a given coin that is up in this hashrate range? With 30-50MH/s you are able to “conquer” allready 90%+ gpu POW coins on every algo.
I have to weigh in on this, not because I believe it could never be a motivation, but simply because this idea was spawned from an open discussion on under what circumstances ASICs wouldn’t be considered a threat of centralization. That discussion spawned this line item in the vote:
The Foundation should commit to a plan for migrating the Zcash protocol to a new proof of work algorithm with a hard-fork planned between September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2020, with the following tasks: 1) Selecting a thermodynamically efficient (not ASIC-resistant!), currently unused proof-of-work algorithm 2) Hosting and building an open hardware specification for the selected PoW algorithm 3) Assembling a consortium of hardware companies to build hardware against this open specification, while encouraging upstream contributions 4) Building an open source, cross-platform, user-friendly, p2pool-esque piece of mining software for use with this hardware 5) Manage the hard fork upgrade process across users, wallets, exchanges (approval, select between 1 and 1 answers, result type absolute.)
This is actually a amalgamation of a lot of user input and ideas blended together into this one possibility. I don’t see this as proof of a nefarious motive. If anything it is proof that something the community discussed openly made it into the vote. Whether it had any real merit is immaterial, it did actually come from the community
You ASIC lover cant get that Monero since forking from Bitmain has totally stable hashrate …its almost straight line …and that is with most better GPU coins when there is no ASIC on them.
While ASIC coins are difficultly endlessly fast rising because ASIC manufacturers use your money for ASIC you paid 10 times then its worth and build them self more ASIC and mine them self and driving difficultly up which makes ASIC people buyed very soon expensive electronic junk.
Before ASIC come my 7970 was still profitable on Zcash even after 6 years since i bought it…on other hand most ASIC are junk after 6 months.
4 Years ago there were 10000s off people mining litecoin in my country …even litecoin was 4-5$ worth…but it was GPU coin…now even it worth 20 times more no one is mining…its Bitmain coin now
Mining should not be gamble.
Bitmain and other ASIC manufacture created from crypto mining a gamble.
When you go to casino for you is gamble…but for the house its not gamble …its stable big earnings…in fact gamble is one the most profitable business on planet earth.
Bitmain is now house and has stable giant profit and all others are gambling in Bitmain house because Bitmain forced you and they set all the rules off gambling.
True, better as awaited, but profitability is going down there as well … without ascis…
I personally don’t care about Monero, but after Monero is that good, just mine it and all your problems are fixed at once.
Unfortunately even mining the earth is a gamble
Surveyor techniques are advanced anymore but until its dug out you cant be sure
I can only make that equation because somebody decided to call computing blockchain transactions for reward “mining”
Now if you made it so you weren’t rewarded for it technically you would remove the gamble part and then it’s just like cards for fun!
I disagree, at no point has any legitimate crypto project even suggested that the coin(s) will hold value and is a “sure thing”. I say legitimate, simply because every coin that has made such an assertion (that I am aware of) has ended up as a ponzi scheme, or exit scammed, or just simply failed because they couldn’t deliver on that promise. Every choice you, I, or anyone else makes comes with a certain amount of risk. Nobody can guarantee the value of any coin today, tomorrow, or years from now. Mining is a calculated risk (gamble), no matter the coin, the matter the value today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now.
It’s clear for about 2 months for me now, actually even thx to this thread that forced me to dig deeper and make some researches and collect more information as i would have done without this thread.
It’s absolutly obvious that, we, smaller miners just can’t compete for long with our normal electricity prices, expect some that luckly live in a region with real low electricity cost.
Right now i’am checking and considering the costs for a small hydro plant 50-100kw/h and to see if it would pay back and is doable at all.
And that is one of my main reason why i think that POS is inevitable soon or late.
Here’s a blog post from the Zcash team in 2016 which states that they were already planning to change the Equihash paramters:
"Mining
We already intend to alter our mining system, at the very least by altering the Equihash parameters. In the future we may even advocate more drastic changes, such as moving to a different proof-of-work system or even proof-of-stake, if we believe those alternatives are feasible, secure, and have better economic effects."
Why is it that two years later, this still isn’t being considered – especially after the wrong choice of Equihash parameters has led to the exact outcome that the Zcash team wanted to avoid?
The “may” and “if” don’t refer to the first sentence.
Here’s the definition of intend: “have (a course of action) as one’s purpose or objective; plan”
I’m not sure how you can interpret this any other way. The Zcash developers said from the beginning that they are planning to change the Equihash parameters. I don’t have all of the details on this, but I suspect the plan was to change the Equihash parameters so that the proof of work requires more memory, which would increase ASIC resistance.
Doesn’t matter at all. Intend, may, if, as you said your own, is a plan. You make plans, you change plans, daily by the way. I can’t see a hardcoded promise here, but just that … a plan intention with may’s and if’s…
Plan changed, obviously not in the direction of your expections and still, some things of this post are still being researched and nothing is final yet and forever.
