Let’s talk about ASIC mining


That’s a pretty hard accusation in my opinion. You shouldn’t go that far …


these accounts used to bad mouth zcash technology. that didn’t really pan out, so, guess they’ve moved on to attacking people. @zooko it’s probably currently a bad idea to publicly promote divisive characters like roger.


I rarely agree with you, but on this one i’am with you. This bad mouthing, scam accusing and similar attacks are going to far in my opinion as well…
Same goes for Roger Ver of course, not the best idea to promote him right now, agreed.


I think this stems from Zookos tendency to mind his manners
I also wonder about if he had praised ANYONE ELSE who was the founder of reward recipient like the employees or the Foundation (I know they exist)? Where are those slanderous rebuttals?
Mind your manners


Too much to quote


Warning, new scam
featured in article :warning::warning::warning:
This is a paid press release so no surprise but dont confuse that for legitimate!

(That Z bank is a recent one too)


I’m curious why this is considered a scam @Autotunafish ?

I do think it’s unusual (and expensive) to get a paid post on Bitcoin.com for a Zcash mining pool, but they could be just desperately looking for miners.

̶U̶n̶t̶i̶l̶ ̶m̶i̶n̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶v̶e̶r̶i̶f̶i̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶t̶’̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶l̶e̶g̶i̶t̶ ̶I̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶h̶o̶l̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶c̶a̶l̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶c̶a̶m̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶.̶


Unless this is right and Im mistaken (her name is something different on z.cash)
Also Zooko, Nathan, Daira, Eli are pictured

If this is all correct then Ill delete it wherever else I posted it

[Edit by @daira: the person pictured is Margaret Baily, who is Executive Assistant at ZcashCo. No authorization was given to use any of our photos, and clearly Margaret Baily isn’t a “CEO and Founder” of ZPool.]


Oh snap! Your right, I was thinking it’s a new mining Pool looking for miners based on the Bitcoin.com article. But it’s actually a ERC20 token claiming to be a pool? With @daira @nathan-at-least @zooko listed as Founders!?

I agree, that can’t be legitimate.


Thats what I thought too, super fishy


I wouldn’t trust it at all.


Your ideas are incorrect. A quick history lesson regarding Roger Ver & Bitcoin Cash:

Roger was one of the first big investors in Bitcoin and he’s done a lot to promote Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. He consistently gets a bad rap here.

As for Bitcoin Cash, that chain more closely resembles the original intention of the Bitcoin Whitepaper than BTC does. Satoshi had always meant for Bitcoin scale on-chain via hard fork improvements (Satoshi even wrote pseudocode for it). These improvements were intentionally prevented on the BTC chain by Blockstream so they could create and sell their federated side-chain product Liquid, becoming a middleman and stealing fees from every transaction.

Censored forums like r/bitcoin controls the BTC narrative, pushing pro second-layer propaganda to new users. Meanwhile, BTC has been contorted into a settlement layer. The LN is slowly centralizing, as one of the main hubs just quit a few days ago. Peer-to-peer electronic cash is no longer possible on BTC because of its expensive on-boarding limitations during high volumes.

Last, the continued attacks from entities trying to derail Bitcoin Cash shows that it’s an important project in the cryptocurrency ecosystem. On-chain scaling is disruptive to legacy systems.


Its one thing to promote your coins as real Bitcoin, but its another to try and sell Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin, for which a lawsuit was filed against him.

That’s a scammer in my book.


Its one thing to promote your coins as real Bitcoin, but its another to try and sell Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin, for which a lawsuit was filed against him.

This is more misinformation from you. Anyone can file a lawsuit for anything and most of them are frivolous. :roll_eyes:

There has been no judgement or awards against Roger Ver that Bitcoin.com incorrectly promoted Bitcoin Cash as the BTC ticker, ever. Bitcoin Cash is BCH, and when people determine which “Bitcoin” they want to buy on that site, they can choose either BCH or BTC. Bitcoin.com has both and makes the difference between the two clear: one works with low fees -> BCH, and one doesn’t -> BTC. Why would you defend BTC with expensive and slow transactions? It doesn’t even work during high volume times. People have transactions stuck for days/weeks despite high fees during those times.

Bitcoin Cash, on a technical level, is the real and original Bitcoin. Just because the protocol upgraded doesn’t mean it’s not. Bitcoin split into two and the term “Bitcoin” in the future could very well refer to Bitcoin Cash after BTC crashes. Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn and Jeff Gazik, the main original Bitcoin developers, have all said that larger blocks were the original scaling approach.

The only scamming at all was Adam Back (late to the party) and Gregory Maxwell’s (social manipulator) hostile takeover of development via Blockstream. They corrupting developers. It was a for-profit power grab. Blockstream had funding from the Builderberg group, connected to European central banks. So when you defend that you are essentially pro central governments taking over coins.

I’m wondering why you’re pushing a false and factually incorrect narrative.

Just an addendum: Like many here I’m an original Bitcoin’er. Zcash is an improvement to the Bitcoin protocol by adding privacy. I feel that it’s important to call out and correct misinformation when we see it, no matter where it comes from.


It doesnt take a verdict to convince me what he did was wrong. We all know that he was selling Bcash as if it was Bitcoin (BTC). He changed it after the lawsuit but not before.

I could argue Bitcoin Gold is the real and original Bitcoin, as Bitcoin was never meant to be mined with specialized hardware, but home devices such as CPU and GPU (From Bitcoin Wallpaper: “One CPU one vote”).

I am wondering if you work for ASIC manufacturers, because your comments have been supporting ASICS even before they started selling them. To be honest, I would expect them to hire few guys to promote their machines, it doesnt cost them much.


It doesnt take a verdict to convince me what he did was wrong. We all know that he was selling Bcash as if it was Bitcoin (BTC). He changed it after the lawsuit but not before.

It would be wrong to continue telling new users that BTC has low fees and fast transaction times like Bitcoin.org continued to do after the Bitcoin Cash upgrade, but let me address some of your other points:

Bitcoin.com has never sold BCH as BTC. If there was a lawsuit then it has since been dismissed as frivolous because I can’t find any info on it. There was also another lawsuit filed recently against Bitmain which claims that renting hashrate is illegal. The attacks are comical at this point. Next they will sue people just for using Bitcoin Cash. Just wait. :slight_smile:

From what I’ve seen Roger Ver and Bitcoin.com has always supported the original vision of Bitcoin described in the Bitcoin Whitepaper (now the Bitcoin Cash fork). Most early adopters like myself have done the same. It’s the moral position to take: Blockstream killed on-chain BTC, Satoshi was for on-chain, end of story. Some Bitcoin Core proponents actually want to rewrite the original Whitepaper because it doesn’t match the pro-BTC propaganda. Again, comical.

Do you remember when BTC fees hit $35 per transaction and a large number of new users were revolting? BTC lost 20-40% of its market share as a result. The impact was harmful for BTC as the dominant player. This will continue to happen in the next bull run.

I am wondering if you work for ASIC manufacturers, because your comments have been supporting ASICS even before they started selling them.

For the official record, I don’t work for an ASIC manufacturer. ASICs are more efficient money machines. They sell themselves.

Also, I was publicly against ASICs for some time before realizing the debate was identical to the CPU vs GPU debate. Increasing mining efficiency is part of the game. We have to adapt or get out played.


This is incorrect.The longest chain more closely resembles the original intention.

From the white paper
Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on
extending it.

BCH is not the longest chain, aka not the real Bitcoin.

Infact, the whitepaper does not even say anything about it being a fast or free way to transact. Nowhere in the whitepaper does it talk about on/off chain scaling or forking. These are talking points spread by BCH.

Satoshi’s vision was longest chain is Bitcoin, period.

Please show me in the whitepaper where it talks about scaling, on chain or off, or being a fast and free money system. Copying BTC and calling yourself the REAL Bitcoin is not scammy? Saying BCH is the real Bitcoin because it more closely matches what the whitepaper said even tho it doesnt? Having a website called BITCOIN,COM that says BUY BITCOIN HERE, you click the link and the first thing listed is BCH. Nope, nothing shady here.

Longest chain = Real Bitcoin, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. That is how Satoshi designed it and wanted it to be.


That’s a secondary. The very first sentence of the Whitepaper outlines the original intent of Bitcoin:

Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution.

It’s literally the first sentence.

Second-layer is a trusted mediator, a weakness in the current financial system. Blockstream’s Liquid is a trusted financial institution. KYC/AML and everything that comes with it. Poof, there goes the reason for even having cryptocurrencies in the first place.

Some people aren’t here just to make a profit. Some of us are here on principle, where those attacking that principle (you and other opportunists) will pick and choose specific parts to attack it, which is exactly what you just did. I’ll let the other reader’s decide whose intention is genuine.

Nowhere in the whitepaper does it talk about on/off chain scaling or forking. These are talking points spread by BCH.

As I mentioned above, this was a talking point spread by Satoshi on Bitcointalk. I gave you a direct link. Satoshi wrote the Bitcoin Whitepaper, you can’t separate the original intention from the two.

Or, here I’ll copy and paste it for you to make it crystal clear:

It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don’t have it are already obsolete.
When we’re near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade. - Satoshi

BCH talking point, eh? How about any true Bitcoin’ers talking point. You should brush up on your Bitcointalk history.


Once again you are making stuff up to fit your agenda. BTC is still 100% trustless cash.

I dont see it mention on-chain/off-chain or forking anywhere in the whitepaper. You are the one turning what the whitepaper says into something it is not.

The longest chain is Bitcoin, I dont know why you are even trying to debate this point. This is Satoshi vison. You keep repeating the same BCH selling points, none of it based on the whitepaper.

You cant keep repeating the whitepaper said, the whitepaper said, and then when someone calls you out on it, saying the whitepaper never mentioned scaling or fast and low fee transactions, and now you are trying to say we are the ones rewriting the whitepaper. And than be like, look over here at a post Satoshi made…

And again I ask you, please show me where it says fast/free money anywhere inside the whitepaper. Show me how BCH more closeIy resembles Bitcoin in the whitepaper.I dont care about other posts Satoshi made, you directly referenced the whitepaper several times saying it more closly resembles BCH, please show me where in the whitepaper it says that.

Once again,you just said BCH more closely resembles BTC from the whitepaper.

As someone that does not own BTC or BCH, BCH seems extremely shady trying to steal Bitcoins name and saying its the “REAL” Bitcoin. Copied its name, Copied its code, Copied its whitepaper, changed the blocksize…yep this is the true Bitcoin now! You have already said you are a bag holder of BCH, so I can see why you belive BCH is the “real” Bitcoin, you are finacial motivated to.

So if I made a copy of Bitcoin Cash, and increased the blocksizes, would mine be the true Bitcoin? It more closely resembles Satoshi’s vision, bigger blocks = Satoshi’s vision.


I do remember this, and you know what caused it? ASIC miners conspired to produce empty blocks to make the transactions more expensive. Increasing block size isnt the only thing that could make transactions cheaper, reducing time between blocks (like zcash has 2.5 minutes instead of bitcoin 10 minutes) also does the trick.

Lets do analysis what ASICS have done for Zcash in these past 7-8 months:

  • Price reduced from $350 to $50, in BTC from 0.044 to 0.015 BTC.

  • Reduction of active addresses by 86% since May 2018.

  • Mining hashrate now 70% centralized in Chinese controlled pools.

  • Original Zcash vision of ASIC resistant coin has been abandoned, and @zooko bent the knee (Game of Thrones anyone :stuck_out_tongue: )

  • Sappling still doesnt make any difference due to lack of wallets that support it (firstly mobile wallets).

Was not delaying Sappling worth it to lose 86% of the community ? I dont think so, and zooko and rest of you know it, but will never admit it. Meanwhile Bitmain went broke, and is struggling, laying off people. Coins that forked are still safe from ASICS, and are GPU mineable (which was big talking point of pro asics - oh they will just make new ASIC if we fork as well).