Gulden is only about 50% more profitable than Litecoin according to this pool: Zergpool - zergpool.com
However, Gulden is a very small altcoin, which means the difficulty will adjust upward very quickly if someone starts mining it with a decent amount of hashing power. Gulden mining will not lead to higher profits for L3 miners once the small differences in profitability get arbitraged away by multipools and NiceHash.
The bottom line for L3 owners is that it’s unprofitable for them to mine if they need to pay over 10 cents per kwh.
dude, take out some calculator, i thought you run some private mining pools? You should be able to make some elementary profit calculations.
Zergpool? Whattomine? Either you are kidding me or you really have no idea how to find some coin calculator, reasearch a given coin and/or do precise coin profit calculations.
And you call a coin on market cap #250 a very small altcoin? Ok, small, fine, but very small? Actually, whatever you want.
I’am mining profitable all the time with my L3’s and 0.13$ electricity costs, so do others of course. And some, like you, that use whattomine, have to deal with borderline profit.
I could mention another 20+ coins that make USD 1.00+ with the L3, but it would be for nothing anyway, so i will spare that extra work and let you in the believe that NO L3 is making profit and all asics are on a lose. So it be, if that makes you happy, so it be
I prefer not to mine coins that are not going anywhere. I mine the coins I think will be worth more in the future. Most of these small projects are doomed to fail. I am in it for the longer term, not daily profit.
Reprogrammable hardware is absolutely the core of the question of how best to decentralize proof-of-work mining (and protect it) — but it’s a balancing act of carefully administered parameters: too specialized, and you’ll find people who protect the hardware, but not the network; too generalized, and you’ll find hardware that is hard to design algorithms for, hard to optimize, and hard to protect from botnets. The GPU just happens to strike the perfect balance. SRC: The Problem with Proof of Work. Proof-of-work had a goal. It was a… | by K. L. Minehan | Medium
Also, not everybody needs a high-end graphics card or wants to maximize profits. The purpose of Fair Mining is to encourage participation which leads to diversified hashpower and thus an improvement to the security of Nakamoto consensus. Participation also helps adoption.
Fair Mining is compatible with this sentiment. Hardware manufacturers are free to design and sell hardware which competes with other mining solutions.
Free markets will dictate the flow of resources from one coin to another. Miners are free to mine whatever coin they like with their GPU’s and most are driven by the profit motive, and not the principals of said coin.
Asic manufacturers will continue to evolve, as will their hardware solutions to support the growing demand.
If Zcash modifies the algo to satisfy miners, then that is short-sighted. If changes are made to strengthen core fundamentals (decentralization withstanding) those are acceptable changes.
Yet we cannot undermine the value stability plays within the crypto economy and the long term viability of Zcash. If mass market institutions choose to enter this space, they will be looking for stability in an extremely volatile market. Constant fear of potential algorithmic changes will do nothing but discourage entrants into a space already plagued with extreme volatility and profound cynicism.
Zcash will be a lot more stable with GPU mining than with ASIC mining, if Bitcoin has taught us anything.
Bitcoin Cash, the Segwit2x threats, and the spam of the Bitcoin mempool were all facilitated by ASIC mining and were supported by ASIC manufacturers – the very same manufacturers who now control most of the Zcash hashrate.
With GPU mining, it’s very unlikely that we’d see a coordinated effort from miners to take over the development of a cryptocurrency.
I personally think the term “fair mining” is totally wrong choosen. I can’t see even anything fair in it to be honest.
If there is something like fair mining it should be begin with CPU’s as the base core, everything around it adjust to CPU, for example:
1x CPU = 1/1
1x GPU = 1/6 - 1/12
1x asic = up to the algo from 1/3 to 1/20 eventually to balance it to the gpu
As said, if it’s not like the example above or something like that, i can’t see how gpu’s/asics/fpga’s/whatever fits into the picture of fair mining as nothing would be fair at all, just again leaving the big mining farms outperforming everybody, no matter if it’s a producer mining farm or a prefered farm from gpu producers.
Only fair mining i can think about would be through some kind of POS. Everything else in favour of a given hardware group is just business protection and biased, no matter if it’s asic, gpu, fgpas, whatever.
Yes i readed it, hence the reason i wrote it’s not fair mining. If we talk about fair mining, at least in my opinion, it must be based on 1x CPU and on nothing else. As soon as it’s based on a gpu, asic, fpga, it allready lost it’s “fair” and is allready and only about mining.
With based on 1x CPU i mean everything else must be in relation to these 1x CPU. For example 1x CPU should be equal to 6 GPU’s for example.
But what you posted only sounds like fair mining, but i can’t find any attibute to be indeed fair mining.
@bitcartel I completely agree that GPUs are ideal. It’s the main reason I started GPU mining, because it was accessible to home users. It does strike the correct balance.
The critical issue with GPU mining is that the algorithms seem to have a high potential of being insecure if an ASIC is developed secretly and manufactured at a high scale to take over and destroy a network. Privacy has a lot of enemies, especially nation states who want information. I don’t trust that GPU-mined coins will be secure over the long term without shifting to decentralized ASICs running at optimized hashrates.
The above is my only distrust of GPU mining. That’s it. If we can solve that problem and guarantee that an algorithm is absolutely GPU-only for the 10-20-30 year foreseeable future then I think we should fork to that algorithm as soon as technically possible.
The best answer is to make the algorithms memory intensive and make them use a lot of memory so the ASIC’s don’t have such an advantage. If a GPU mined coin already gets ASIC’s on the network that are too efficient they should fork, but make it multi algorithm so it doesn’t disrupt the coin and lower the ASIC share as low as is needed to level the playing field. I don’t like the idea of making another coin when forking ASIC’s off the network. But if it were memory bandwidth intensive and used a lot of memory an ASIC would be very expensive to produce. Furthermore, if the coin devs made it clear they would fork if a too efficient ASIC got produced even with these precautions that they would fork to remove their advantage. That would be a double whammy for the ASIC manufacturers and they would lose all of their advantage and would have to risk a lot more to even produce such an ASIC.
Sounds good in theory but won’t work in reality. It would result in producers selling/making public just down tuned asics and they would keep mining with the (for example) 10x more profitable/efficient units and never ever make it public. It would enforce secrete and private mining in my opinion exactly for the reasons you mentioned. It would even force them to mine more their own than selling.
But if were memory intensive enough and used several GB of DDR5X/6 it would be very expensive to produce and there wouldn’t be much more efficient ASIC’s than already available GPU’s. I don’t think they would bother making them. To combat a secret ASIC even if they are brought online slowly you simply look at other coins with and without that algorithm and see if only one or a few of them have gained more hashrate recently. That is a clue to secret mining ASIC’s. I don’t think it would be a problem though if you made the algorithm support features that are only in high end GPU’s. The algorithm could also require shader processors in addition to the memory requirements. There are many possibilities to achieve the goal if devs were actually committed to doing it, but most of the time they take the miners for granted as long as no problems are being caused by them.
maybe, maybe not. I don’t know what in theory would be able to do with a high tech asic that is created only for internal usage and i doubt that some GB would solve it. I mean when they sell them self cost price is a factor, if you produce it only for the own farms it’s no longer a factor.
Than the ETH asic issue. While everybody said that’s the way to go and that it’s not a problem having the E3 on ethash things changed fast. As i adviced everybody NOT to take the E3 for comparison not long after we see now that Innosilicon has a way better and more efficient Asic for Ethereum, and these are only the revealed 1st generation ones.
I as well think that with each time memory increasement you as well turn out gpu miners with lower end cards, not?
While in theory it sounds always perfect i have just my doubts that things work like that in reality and my fear is that things would get even worse with secret/private mining, which of course and without doubt, is one of the major asic problems.
Me personally lost by now all faith and thrust in whatever kind of “fair” mining, it just seems simply not to happen, hence my pro POS believe by now, no matter i still run some asics/gpu’s for the next months.
I think algorithms that require large amounts of memory are already quite safe against secret ASICs, but to go one step further, Zcash could try ProgPOW:
Also, what makes you think that ASIC friendly algorithms don’t have numerous secret ASICs mining them? Given the terrible profitability of Dash and Litecoin on publicly available hardware, I have to suspect that much, if not most, of the hash rate is coming from private hardware. I suspect the same is true for Bitcoin, which has seen its hashrate continue to skyrocket despite losing over half its value. Ethereum almost certainly has a much smaller percentage of its hashrate coming from private ASICs, given its high profitability on GPUs.
This isn’t about “trying”, this is about knowing that an algorithm is 100% ASIC resistant and implementing it after we are sure. Trying out different algorithms on mainnet would be sloppy development.
Further, ASICs can adapt to memory requirements while reducing electrical consumption over GPUs. All this does is lessen the gap between ASICs and GPUs (which are just computer graphics focused ASICs by the way). If that’s what we’re doing then we should just switch to Ethash.
Well the initial Zcash parameters were only trying to prevent ASIC’s for a period of time. The idea is to erase the performance delta of ASIC’s enough where the economies of scale of GPU manufacturers makes it close to evening the playing field. There are no perfect solutions. Video card distributors would also need to adhere to a limited sales policy so a few large operations did not overtake too much of the hashrate. Otherwise cryptocurrencies will be dominated by a few cartels.
