Let’s talk about ASIC mining


#5342

Thats alot of IFs…I dont know why you keep bringing up hashrates, and talking about if the hashrates change because everyone moves away from Zec, this is all theoretical and hasnt happened.

Yes @boxalex, if everyone moves off of Zcash, their profits will go down, this logic does not mean EVERYONE who bought a Equihash ASIC is forced into mining Zec.

RIGHT NOW, TODAY, AT THIS VERY MOMENT people are not forced to mine Zec. If I had a Equihash ASIC, there is 3 other coins more profitible I can go mine RIGHT NOW, so tell me again, how I am FORCED to commit my rig to ZEC.

Look at my last post, Zec is not the most profitable right now. I bet people are mining other coins RIGHT NOW with thier EQIUHASH ASICS. They are not INVESTED into Zec. So tell me again, how are they FORCED to mine Zec right now?

I dont know how much more proof I can link you to show , people are mining OTHER coins with thier Equihash ASICs right now.

Zec is not even the most profitable right now. You are not forced to mine Zec. Stop saying people are commited to mining Zec and are investing only into the Zec network when they buy a ASICs, its simply not true.

Less profits is not the same as having only ONE coin to mine.


#5343

why community has to support people who invested in equihash asics?
ignoring possible fork?
ignoring that equihash was chosen for its asic resistance in the first place?

this clearly is blind greed.

noone cares for true miners who invested in april in nvidia gpus for example. people mined zcash for year. and in June they just pushed out by doubled difficulty.
who’ve seen zooko care for dedicated zcash miners? noone. its pure hipocracy.

maybe zooko, you should say straight - in case you guys make me update algorythm, you will have to help Bitmain, because we have a deal.


#5344

I never said people aren’t mining other coins on equihash too, my argument is that the majority of equihash asics is literally forced to mine ZEC

Ok, seems i have to draw and paint it in easy mode with my morning coffee, lol.

Current state of your whattomine screenshot:
BTCP 5 MH/s Rev. 3.70 Profit 2.84
ZEN 215 MH/s Rev. 3.48 Profit 2.62
ZCL 56 MH/s Rev. 3.42 Profit 2.55
KMD 16 MH/s Rev 3.18 Profit 2.32
ZEC 2300 MH/s Rev 3.26 Profit 2.39

State after shifting hashrate and doubling the hashrate with 292 MH/s from ZEC of the other coins:
BTCP 10 MH/s Rev. 1.85 Profit 0.99
ZEN 430 MH/s Rev 1.74 Profit 0.88
ZCL 112 MH/s Rev 1.71 Profit 0.85
KMD 32 MH/s Rev 1.59 Profit 0.73
ZEC 2008 MH/s Rev 3.68 Profit 2.82

Now let’s double the hashrate with another 584 MH/s again for these coins with ZEC hashrate
BTCP 20 MH/s Rev 0.92 Profit 0.07
ZEN 860 MH/s Rev 0.86 Profit 0.01
ZCL 224 MH/s Rev 0.85 Profit -0.01
KMD 64 MH/s Rev 0.79 Profit -0.07
ZEC 1424 MH/s Rev 4.78 Profit 3.92

In the latest extreme example that can’t happen at all we see that all other coins have a hashrate of 1,168 MH/s together while ZEC still has 1,424 MH/s. This is the current worst case scenario which huge theoretical shiftings which never will happen in reality.

Conclusion: In worst case ZEC would still have the majority of the Asic’s hashrate, they are literally forced to stay on ZEC as all other coins don’t make any profit anymore after a given hashrate is shifted.

The fact that Nicehash, Miningpoolhub and some other pools are shifting hashrate around, some miners shift them themself does not mean the MAJORITY can shift, as shown in the examples they … just can’t.
Hence, for the last time, the majority of the ZEC asics MUST mine ZEC to stay profitable, it’s that simple mathematics that someone can only wonder how someone doesn’t get the logic behind this.

Another sidenote: As this is good for ZEC it’s not really good for the other coins on the equihash algo. On given asic algos only the top coin that can handle all this traffic has a real good advantage while the others are more or less directly opposed to security and attack risks with the way lower hashrate.

Edit: Your main problem and wrong doing with your assumption is that you reflect the behaviour of a minority of equihash asic to the majority of them. An anolog than back would be (actually a valid one), that ALL ZEC gpu’s than back could switch tomorrow away from ZEC because ETH gives 20% more profit on whattomine.
Here you go, there is even no threshold of how many gpu’s can switch while with the equihash asics there IS A threshold of theoretical possible switching asic hashpower on equihash with the result that the majority CAN’T SWITCH.


#5345

the more zooko admires boxalex posts for years and takes no action => more people buy asics => more people should be saved cause they are forced to mine zcash, loool

genious!


#5346

Yes you did say that, and this is my entire point. They have the option to mine other coins, they are not forced to mine Zec…


#5347

Let’s get back talking about ASIC?

https://shop.bitmain.com/product/detail?pid=00020181107195820131prWuuVTy0738


#5348

When Equihash ASIC’s invaded the network, were GPU’s bricked? No. They switched to other algo, but as there were too many of them on that algo now, it made it less profitable. Did ASIC promoters care about GPU community then and their investments? No!

When Zec changes algo, will ASIC be bricked? No, they will have to change to another coin on Equihash. As there are many of them, will it make it less profitable. Yes. Do non ASIC owning people care about people who invested in ASIC mining of “ASIC resistant coin” and their ROI? No!

Its funny how @zooko cares about people invested in ASICS and gives them at least 1 year in advance before changing algo, but when ASICS were introduced, he didnt care about people who invested in GPU enough to do anything about it, even tho they did not receive any info on ASIC coming to the network. Least he could do was switch to 144 5 parameters like BTG and some others did. Do you want me to ask developers of Bitcoin Gold, how easy it was to change parameters?

Also another coin ZERO, switched to 192 7 equihash parameters (which is even stronger than 144 5), and it didnt even take a week after Zcash implemented Sappling for them to have it on testnet already. And I am talking here about a coin with a LOT smaller development team.

So this is how much harder it was to switch algo in preparation of Sappling.


#5349

Your numbers are right (according to back of the envelope calculation). I am sorry but I am a bit misinformed on what the Zcash team will decide or what’s in their agenda about the case.
I know that PoS can be used to mine new blocks, in fact there are several ways to work on this part and I agree on cost of attack part. To me PoS is ultimately what the protocol should aim for at some point, following the idea of a self-sufficient network that i mentioned above.
Again, I don’t know what Zcash stance is right now and would like to know what is being discussed but I would like to know if hardening Equihash parameters is a viable temporary solution? And if so when can such an upgrade be done?


#5350

This shouldn’t be a point adressed to me. My very only point by now is that the majority of equihash asics is bound to ZEC, nothing less, nothing more. Serously, with my pro POS view i don’t care neither about asics, nor about gpu…

Mostly it was even a mistake to jump into the ZEC switching hashpower discussion…


#5351

Yea sorry about that. Seemed like you were taking a stance with ASICs for a moment there. I think PoS is best solution but wanted to point out the hypocrisy of @zooko 's statement how they will give at least 1 year of advance notice to ASIC miners, but they didnt care at all about GPU miners.

I dont understand why they dont research PoS right away, issue a grant like they did for that team working with progPoW.


#5352

Why do you keep repeating this lie.

People with ASICs are bound to Zec the same way people with GPUs were bound to Zec when ASICs took over. Sure you can keep mining Zec when other coins become more profitable, this does not mean you are bound to Zec.

ASICs are not NOT bound to the Zec network.
ASICs are not Invested into the network.
ASICs CAN switch coins.

Ok, your right boxalex, if EVERYONE moves to another coin, profits on other coins would go down. You then say is impossible to happen / worst case scenario / huge theoretical shiftings, so why do you keep brining this up again and again?

A therotical shifting, that most likely wont ever happen. Compared to how people can SWITCH mining coins TODAY, RIGHT NOW, no theories, no worst case, no cant happens.

People are mining other Equihash coins with thier ASIC right now, they are not bound/invested/forced to do anything with Zec. Please stop repeating the same lie.


#5353

I make a comment on how if a more profitable coin comes out for Equihash, ASICs will switch to it, they are not forced/invested/bound to Zec.

You then make up a outrageously unlikely situation to try and disprove it.
You keep making a Strawmans argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man .

You than in the next post, proceed to make up a even more unlikely situation that you even say “can’t happen / worst case scenario / never will happen in reality”, but its ok to use this example, because its in your favor.

Not much of a discussion when you keep repeating the same misinformation and then each time create a elaborate what IF to justify it.


#5354

I don’t think there is data on this, and my crystal ball is being repaired at the moment, so all I have is my gut. :slightly_smiling_face:


#5355

Some of you may have seen this in the GitHub repo already, but ctrl+F through this post for “PoW” “proof of work” and “ASIC” https://z.cash.foundation/blog/q2-grant-winners/

tl;dr we’re funding some ASIC-resistance research and proof-of-concept implementation


#5356

Proof of work yes, but not Proof of Stake research. Its good to have all options open, dont you think @sonya ?


#5357

Agreed but I don’t think we got any PoS proposals. I know @zooko has been pondering it.


#5358

Ahh, I see, so the problem is no one applied for PoS research grant.


#5359

Theres a bit going on here if you can read through all the nonsense


#5360

#5361

So why are the new 1060’s using the GP104 (this core is used for 1070/80’s) core and ddr5x memory and have the sli headers (that are probably disabled)

Traditionally 1060 use GP 106 chips. I reckon they purposefully forced the 1080ti out of production before the 2070 is released.

Remember they got a few 100,000 1080’s returned.

Dunno. Doesn’t really matter anymore. nvidia coins are dead.