Let’s talk about ASIC mining


This is clearly a scam, and is impersonating people from ZcashCo. I’ve brought it to the attention of the team responsible for dealing with that.


Another one of the titles i enjoy reading:


Blocks were full on BTC, miners were using all of the available space yet the backlogs and high fees increased as a result of them being full.

I get the impression that you’re basing your opinions on information that just isn’t true.

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

It’s a bear market, everything has gone down (price, usage). This has absolutely nothing to do with ASICs versus GPUs. Other GPU coins have also plummeted in price. Miners always centralize in bear markets because smaller miners don’t have the lower electrical rates. This is an issue with GPU and ASIC mining.


The continued anti-Bitmain bashing is like a broken record. I’ve also never heard you say anything bad about Innosilicon who also created a Zcash ASIC or other ASIC manufacturers.

@Trololino Another one of the titles i enjoy reading:
…Bitmain may start a massive round of layoffs this week that could impact more than 50% of its employees, according to a report by CoinDesk on Tuesday.

Commenting that you enjoy reading about people losing their jobs is just kind of sad.


Wouldn’t you, if you were reading about how factory that makes weapons for your enemy is going bankrupt ?

As for Insillicon, I wish them all the worst as well, I just dont find anything to read about them anywhere.


Wouldn’t you, if you were reading about how factory that makes weapons for your enemy is going bankrupt?

Enemy? Bitmain or a Bitmain-like company was inevitable, it would have been anyone at the right place at the right time with the right demand - and there was massive demand for ASICs. Bitmain was actually fairer because they sell to normal consumers as well rather than only selling to large farms. I’m not saying Bitmain is great and I dislike a lot of things they have done, but it could have been much worse. The last time I checked ASICs don’t fire bullets either.


This one looks like scam as well. Web wallet site in the name of zcash trying to steal private keys in my opinion. Anybody from the Zcash team can check this?



That one was posted here a few days ago and removed for that very reason



How does the headline fit with the article itself?

Security lead Martin Holst Swende gave his opinion that ProgPoW is more resistant both to ASICs and to certain accelerators that can be used for GPU-based setups, and that a switch to ProgPoW would “postpone the level of ASICs on our network for at least a year on our network, or perhaps more.”

He also noted that Ethereum’s current PoW algorithm, Ethash, “has flaws which are currently being targeted,” stating “that’s why I would like to switch as soon as possible to give us time to move to proof-of-stake.”

As reported, after evolving through the hybrid PoS-PoW Casper protocol, Ethereum is expected to ultimately transition to PoS (Casper v2). Alongside sharding, that latter will aim to mitigate the excessive energy consumption associated with PoW, “issues with equal access to mining hardware, mining pool centralization,” as well as providing an on-chain scaling solution.

The devs’ meeting today comes just ahead of the planned implementation of Ethereum’s fifth system-wide update, or hard fork, dubbed “Constantinople.”

The devs leaned towards rolling out ProgPoW sometime before the launch of the subsequent planned hard fork, Istanbul, as a stand-alone but system-wide upgrade — although the exact timing for ProgPoW will continue to be discussed in the next devs’ meeting January 18.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin recently posted extensive comments on future blockchains with sharding based on proof-of-stake PoS, claiming they will be “thousands of times more efficient” than existing networks.

I mean it seems they want to switch as soon as possible to POS, so how does a POW algo switch fit into this and what’s the logic behind?


I think the title kinda says it all.

Ethereum Core Devs to Move Forward With ASIC-Resistant PoW Algorithm

They are trying to kick ASICs off. They are reducing the issuance soon(miner reward), and this was to help miners get more rewards, by removing the ASICs. They dont want ASICs mining it.

Its must be alot easier to switch the PoW to another algo, compared to going PoS(years away still?).

PoS still has lots of issues to work out and its not ready yet.


The reason is clear to get Asics off, that’s ok and i understand it, no problem here.
The thing i don’t understand is that they want to switch as possible to POS, but the article mentiones a possible switch to another POW algo. No matter if it’s easier or not, it will take resources away from the POS switch, hence i have my doubts it will happen and is planned like that.

POS doesn’t seem to be that far away. Constantinople was delayed just 3 months, i expect about the same or at least max 6 months delay for the POS switch. My personal prediction is OCT 2019 - March 2020 ETH POS switch will happen.

Having the lead security guy on ETH saying that he would like to switch as soon as possible tells me there are some serious security issues and there is a more than good reason why they prefer POS…


They are reducing the mining rewards in the next update, from 3 to 2. Miners are barely able to make any money currently. They belive the fix is, remove the ASIC miners. This should help miners stay profitable and mining ETH.

They have said many times PoS isnt ready yet. Evidently changing the PoW isnt that costly, and will buy them more time to work on PoS. This PoW change also delays the difficulty bomb they have in the code.

They are trying to help the miners stay mining, while also reducing the inflation like they have promised to investors for so long. PoS is not ready yet and they are not going to let the miners leave in mass(thankfully).


Implementing ProgPoW for Ethereum was surprisingly easy. All main clients already support pluggable consensus engines so adding another one was not that complex. The most work was in fact spent porting ProgPoW to the languages the clients are implemented in (go, rust) and to finalize the algorithm specs.

Compared to other Ethereum hard forks, switching just the PoW algorithm is a lot less complex.


@Lisfin you are continually barking up the wrong tree. You seem to think that the results of the Foundations Governance Panel vote had something to do with not forking away from ASICs it did not.

Zcash Foundation (who held the vote and had a Governance Panel, etc…) is a completely separate entity from Zcash Company. Zcash Foundation didn’t and still doesn’t have the power to change the Algo. https://z.cash.foundation//blog/statement-on-asics/ they, like you and I can only try to influence what the Zcash Company does.

Zcash Foundation is trying to do many things like establish a “good” voting system for the future so users like yourself don’t feel overlooked, fund research into alternative (ASIC resistant Algos) like ProgPOW, and fund Wallets and alternative Nodes, etc, etc…

If you feel the first voting attempt sucked, great, let’s come up a better one. Let’s try to rationally influence Zcash Company so your voice can be heard. They are deciding on the fate of the new PoW [as we speak] (https://github.com/zcash/zcash/issues/3672). The Deadline is in a few weeks.

Maybe this time they will listen if you suggest sound PoW strategy, maybe they won’t, but it’s a better plan than sitting here yelling at the clouds.

Arjun Balaji's "2019 predictions"

Why do team members keep comming on the forums and keep saying “THE COMMUNITY VOTED FOR IT”.

Or keep telling us, “We should of voted”, “The community voted for it”, “You had the chance to vote”. You guys are constantly double talking.

Even at the start of this thread, YOU Shawn were even saying, “we could of joined to vote” as if it could of changed the outcome. Than a few sentences later are saying “had zero effect”…so why should I have signed up to vote than? It would of been pointless, so why are you guys constantly saying “we voted/or should have”?

This sounds alot like he is saying, “we should of voted, if we didnt vote, that is why ASICs won”. Sure sounds like the vote will have a impact of the outcome, but now you say the voting had ZERO impact…

IMHO having a time limit on funding is a good idea, because it enables the community to check-point the funding process more easily. If the community decides that there’s good reason to fund additional development beyond when the current funding expires (e.g. if there is still functionality that we want to see developed and deployed), then it can support another extension. If the community decides that they only want to see maintenance with no more research & development, or they want to cease all paid network support, then that’s fine too. It’s not about “letting them extend it”; it’s about enabling the community to choose what they want to support.

He sure talks about “THE COMMUNITY” making the vote/choice. And my point IS,

Is it the same vote we made LAST VOTE, the one you keep saying had NO EFFECT on the outcome. Im not sure how I can try to get this point across any more, YES i know the last vote was a sham and had no effect. Why do you think I keep saying


You start the thread out saying we should of voted, we had the chance to vote. Couple posts later you say the votes would of had ZERO effect.

Now you are telling us we have a chance to vote for funding. Why would this vote count but our last vote didnt? Can you see the point I am trying to make now?


If you guys could not hear the screams of the majority on the fourms about how ASIC would be bad for the network, a single voice is not going to be heard.

The “community” did not want ASICs, can we agree on this?

But yet here we are, with ASICs, and then you guys keep repeating the “we voted for it”…


The majority of people who post frequently on the forum =/= the majority of the Zcash community at large. We have multiple constituencies (so to speak), and being louder doesn’t necessarily make you more important.

That said, I agree that the governance participants didn’t make up a representative group of Zcash users, but largely because of the lack of international representation. It would have been great to have more people from countries beyond the United States and Europe.


Please, show us the stats you have showing a majority in favor of ASICs
…wait for it…here comes the link to the foundations vote panel…

You guys dont have anything showing the majority was in favor of asics, it does not exist. However I can show many things that show a majority was against them.

Like I said, Zcash members keep repeating that same old crap. You keep saying things like “forums dont matter” “polls dont matter” “our vote system didnt matter”… You guys must be completely blind than, what other stats can you go by? When your communitys only voice right now is currently the forums, what other things can you go by?

The voting panel was a sham, cant use that. But so far I have constantly seen devs link to that as proof we the “community” voted for ASICs.

No Team member or Foundation member has truthfully answered my question.
Do you think the majority was in favor of ASICs?
I would like to see how you stood on this issue. If you think the majority was in favor of ASICs taking over, you are blind to the data and ignoring all the stats that were available to you.

Every Zcash “employee” always comes on here saying “You cant prove it was the majority”…Look at the biggest thread in the forums here, read through the beginning. It wasnt just a “vocal few” at first.
And I ask again, can you show us any DATA that supports the majority was in favor of ASICs?


The number of us in Community who were or were not in favour of ASICs was not the deciding factor in Zcash Company’s decision:

What Data do you have that refutes thier technical reasoning?

(And FYI my personal opinion is easily seen at the top of the let’s talk about ASICs thread)

See also: https://z.cash/blog/zcash-company-statement-on-asics/