Recent Coin Launch & GPU Impact

mostly r9 390x, r9 295x2

I’ve got 16 GPU, run two miners

2 Likes

The similarity between coins and stocks is obviously strong. I could write a book on that, but it would be off-topic. (The administrators have previously complained about me carrying a thread off-topic.)

:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Opinions are not facts - much less facts that prove applicability of so-called ‘laws’.

When there are 100,000 typical PCs on Zcash they will get 7200/100,000 * 30 = 2.2 coins per month each. If they are new and efficient at 50W and in the upper 1/4 of current computers, that will be $0.13/kWh * 50W/1000 * 24 * 30 = $4.70 per 2.2 coins. The PC probably would have been on 1/2 the time any way, so it’s really only about $1 per coin.

If they were all GPU miners with state of the art parallel programing with the same hash power, that would be 4x fewer devices at 2x the electrical cost, still $1 per coin since they are dedicated to the task. Capital costs are the same way: there’s a glut of GPUs but for the typical home user, there’s no additional cost of the equipment he already had. This was their goal, except no GPUs would have been better. It only will affect bulk CPU miners and ASICs.

This assumes no botnets.

I think the unused GPUs will rule early on due to the glut, even without the parallel coding, about as efficient as CPUs. As soon as there’s more than 5,000 of them, maybe they will start to lose interest due to electricity costs of $0.25/coin.

Socialism and calculation just don’t mix…

The goal with mining is for nodes to exist in a state of anarchy. It is not at all clear that ASIC resistance does anything to promote that. Many people are mistaking ASICs as the reason for centralization pressure, when it’s actually costs-per-joule.
The entire purpose of POW is to prove that some amount of energy was expended by the node in order for it to get the right to publish a block. Ultimately nodes compete based on the efficiency of converting joules in the environment to provable work.
Suppose that you made an algorithm that is perfect; It is absolutely impossible to use a GPU or ASIC. The node must use general purpose CPU’s for all work done.
Which nodes would then compete the best? Whoever can get the cheapest joules from the environment. Highly centralized sources of power are the most efficient, and that doesn’t appear to be changing any time soon.
Furthermore, if you were to make an algorithm that is only possible to run on a general purpose CPU, then it follows that the only companies that could make the most efficient mining apparatus’ would be CPU manufacturers, which again are highly centralized.
So it seems like in the best case scenario we go from having a bunch of ASICs in China to a bunch of CPUs in China, because that’s where the cheapest energy is. The worst case scenario would be the same except you would have to buy a highly optimized, expensive CPU in order to run a node; Running a few hashes off of a USB drive wouldn’t even be an option.
A better way to look at mining algorithms is to ask, “What algorithm can be done most efficiently the easiest?”, because we want as little barriers to entry as possible.

Democracy biases capitalism towards socialism

That makes about as much sense as claiming that ‘x biases black towards white’.

It is to be expected that people who have no value and no morals are perfectly at ease with the notion of wiping out the value of others.

1 Like

@Voluntary & @zawy , perhaps you guys could start a separate debate thread instead of philosophically disagreeing on two different threads.

2 Likes

The sounds of contentiousness were only from his replies to my posts, most of which were not to him. I did not philosophize except to suggest a coin that solves the problems being discussed. The rest of my comments were observational facts.

1 Like

True, but this thread was started to facilitate the GPU impact on Zcash. Not democracy, morals, capitalism and such.

3 Likes

"n China, because that’s where the cheapest energy is. "

Interesting how so many assume this.

I know a guy mining BTC and ETH … he has rates similar to RESIDENTIAL rates in PRC (CDN $0.05)

And a Scandinavian buddy has looked at Iceland - claiming it’s fantastically cheap.

Whether or not it’s the “cheapest” wasn’t the point I was trying to get at. They must have access to energy that is cheaper, and at quantities, that is not available to the market in general.
The bottom line is ASIC resistance doesn’t do anything to counteract the much more significant factors that give centralized parties a competitive advantage, and even the thing they’re trying to address, making mining devices more widely available, is highly speculative.

ASIC friendliness compounds centralisation and the competitive advantage of big miners. As an individual, the prospects of gearing up to mine Bitcoin are not appealing - having to order from overseas, wait, hope that equipment actually works once it clears customs and then keep that gear operating 24/7 until it becomes too inefficient to justify the power draw. And then I’m left with a pile of landfill instead of equipment that can be repurposed (ie: sold) and productively used until it actually stops working.

1 Like

2013-era desktops use 4x more electricity when mining Zcash compared to sitting idle.

440KHz produces a tone referred to as ‘A’.

1 Like

In response to your comment: “Which nodes would then compete the best? Whoever can get the cheapest joules from the environment. Highly centralized sources of power are the most efficient, and that doesn’t appear to be changing any time soon.”

There are potential highly decentralized sources of cheap electrical energy:

Source one, including do it yourself build plans, and demonstration video.

Source two will be placed in a separate post. (Forum rule, since I am new.)

Understand these are controversial energy sources, not endorsed by mainstream energy providers, yet.

Source two, including disassembly and demonstration video.