I don’t disagree with that sentiment really. Just add, even Dev’s have to eat. =)
1 Like
2x13 gpu rigs. 26 video cards 12.5k
4000 Watts at .14 cents/ kWh=$400 a month.
13,000 sols
2 z9 mini - $4200
600 Watts. @ .14 kWh= $61 a month
20,000 sols.
This is decentralization…much cheaper to get in. And to run at home. Even if electricity cost are higher.
This is not even the same initial deposit. Someone with a third the initial investment will get more hash than it cost me to build two huge rigs. At less than a tenth of the power. This puts more hash in more hands. Cheaper on every front.
To compare apples to apples.
2 13 gpu rigs. $12.5k 4000 Watts @.14 kWh -13000sol
6-z9 mini. 12.6k. 1800 Watts. @.14kwh. 60,000 sol
Now the same person same investment is making 5 times what I am at a tenth the cost of electricity.
How is this not dencentealization
No, not wrong. I never said they couldn’t make an ASIC for anything. Of course you “could” do it, but it would be cost prohibitive to do that…which is the goal, make it undesirable for them to continue trying.
More hash power does not make the network faster. Block rate is a constant based on the difficulty auto-adjustment. The more hash power you try to add, the high the difficulty will go and the block emission stays the same. That is by design. You still have the same number of max transaction per block, same amount of blocks per hour, so speed of transactions…not a factor.
Gut feeling == could be right, could be wrong. My feeling, not meant to be a absolute on that subject.
No thanks. I have around the same invested, and the same skin in the game. I get it, you are convinced what you believe is right, that’s fine. I disagree based on what has already happened with other coins. ASIC is not the natural progression, just one possibility amongst multiple possibilities. Am I right, are you right? Is there a better answer? We could debate that all day and probably never agree. That’s not the crux of my argument on the matter, see my earlier posts if you are truly interested.
I don’t remember ever making a statement so short sighted such as chip cards and paying with a smart phone…but feel free to make all the assumptions you want, doesn’t really pertain to the discuss so it doesn’t matter to me.
1 Like
Not sure if your replying to me. But I was not referencing you sir or ma’am.
That’s a fact that has yet to be really determined. Only one way to prove or disprove that though. But aside from that, given a ubiquitous environment where anyone could walk into a electronics store or order from newegg or amazon and actually get access to said ASIC, and that price is consistently reasonable for everyone, and in a world with more than one dominant manufacturer, like GPU’s and CPU’s then I would have less of a problem with ASIC. The playing field would at least be level for “all”, but the economics of it would still probably fail in the long run (could be wrong), we don’t really have a reference for this ideal as it just doesn’t exist in any form currently.
What you don’t seem to understand is that you can’t compare the ASICs current hash rate to a gpu rigs current hash rate. This is because nethash and subsequently DIFFICULTY will increase. It’s about relative hash rate, as someone else has mentioned to you in a previous post.
1 Like
I’m not a gpu miner actually, don’t have any mining rig, and frankly I don’t worry for gpu miners, they will always find a coin that is Asic resisting. I’m just trying to defend Zcash, that is a project that I really want to succeed. And falling in the the control of the Bitmain is not something I wish for Zcash.
-
your asic runs at 150 W, fine, but that doesn’t mean anything. Again, what matters is the relative hashrate you have in the global hashrate, that’s all. Do you understand that 150 W with an Asic coin will get you a smaller relative hashrate than a 1500 W mining rig in a Asic resisting coin ?
-
The fact that the gpus are outdated is just relative to a policy of Asic acceptance, that’s all. A policy that make random small tweaks to the algo every 6 months will make Asics impossible to make.
-
Fpgas are the future of mining, and we already are seeing some progress there. I think progressively gpus will be replaced by fpgas in the next years (for asic resisting coins). The market of fpga is much much healthier than Asics. Precisely because it is useful outside mining (in Deep Learning), the incentive to compete at that scale is much bigger than just mining Equihash.
Possible I hit reply on the wrong post @Mrmags. Getting late, and my eyes are starting to get tired.
Honestly I give up trying to explain to you. I just hope one day you will understand, and read our answers calmly with the goal of understanding.
Run the difficulty to 140 million (20 times what it is now) and recompute your profits. If the increase in difficulty Dash experienced is any guide, you can expect that Z9 to make a few bucks a month in 60 days.
The D3’s cost more to operate than they produce and they only came out 6 months ago - and within 60 days of release, they were DOA.
So if the same can be expected of the Z9, how is it good for ZCash if it becomes potentially unprofitable to mine because instead of the price going to the moon, the difficulty does?
Recommendation: All GPU miners, another way out @ Zooko The above already expressed, not bifurcated, why should we argue?
Except that monero just suffered an 8 block fork and one chain ran a 21 block chain within 90 mins. Lower hashrate means easier to attack. btw, monero network OFFLINE right now. Edit: My news may have been a little delayed. I posted reddit article of monero crisis.
I apologize to the monero community. I did not know the difference between a pool “xmr.to” and the monero network. The monero network, as I have been told, never was “down.”
ZcashCo completely ignores our voice, 3 days passed
That’s not a fair statement. I’ve seen Shawn, Daria, and Zooko replying in the thread. Someone from the Foundation stated recently a statement hopefully will be made early this coming week.
They are not offline. But they are discussing the one chain that went 21 blocks…very abnormal behavior, combined with someone DDOSing P2P nodes relentlessly over the last 48 hours. Someone is trying real hard to cause problems for Monero.
Were you referring to Xmr.to? They were already down for an unrelated maintenance reason…they even said so.
Tinfoil hat time (lol)…could it be retaliation for being scorned by someone with a lot resources?? (/remove tin foil hat) Dun Dun Dun!!
Let’s see… how much of a game changer is the Bitmain Antminer Z9?
Bitcoin GPU mining topped out at about 3 MH/s/W. The Bitmain Antminer S9 does about 10 MH/s/W.
So it took only about 3.3X MH/s/W to drive GPUs out of the business of SHA256d mining altogether. Is that right?
Could someone who has studied the tech and the history here check me? Are those numbers right? Is the Bitmain Antminer S9 a good example of the kind of thing that drove GPU miners out of the SHA256d business?
The Z9 specs say that it does 10,000 Sol/s at 300 W. That’s about 33 Sol/s/W, right? And the best modern GPU miners appear to do about 4.1 Sol/s/W, according to Hashrate/power usage observations and Best Sols to Watt Thread . So the Z9 is probably about 8 times as efficient in Sols/s/W than the current GPUs? Is that right?
I find this stunning, if correct! I would have assumed that the Equihash ASICs were more efficient than the Equihash GPUs, but that Equihash’s memory-oriented architecture would have made the advantage of ASIC implementation of Equihash much less efficient compared to ASIC implementation of SHA256d, but it appears the opposite is true!
SHA256d should be basically optimal for ASIC implementation, so the only explanation that I can currently grope toward, in my shocked state, is that all of our clever design work that went into Equihash (starting with the scientists behind Equihash, who designed it before they had ever heard of the Zcash project), made Equihash mining harder for GPUs more than it made it harder for ASICs!
This illustrates something that I think is critical to the debate here and that I think a lot of members of the community need to stop and think carefully about and stop just brushing it off:
If we rush to deploy a new “ASIC-resistant” algorithm, it could, for all I know, be even more friendly to ASICs than our first attempt appeared to be. We have no idea how the Bitmain Antminer Z9 works. Unless my back-of-the-envelope numbers above are wrong (maybe I’m comparing apples to oranges at some point), then the way it works is very different than the way we thought ASIC miners worked when we designed the first Zcash PoW.
3 Likes
I’m listening.
Post must be at least 20 characters. 
My suggestion, if there is no viable competition for the z9 mini, is to fork (with the september sapling release) into a viable ASIC PoW algo that has established miners from 3-6 manufacturers. The current crisis with monero tells us that there are bad actors seeking to destroy networks. Increased hashpower is needed to make this kind of attack insanely expensive to impossible.
Dude, Just like you thought “Spondooie Tech” still makes ASICS, you are spreading false information. The Monero network is not offline. There is a possibility someone is trying to attack the network, and guess who most people think it is? Bitmain.
Further, you do realize that Monero has been running on about nearly 1/10th of the hashpower it is currently at since 2014, so your logic about attacks also doesn’t make sense. Please, stop…