how guaranteed is this coin to remain CPU only. Every coin that has claimed that so far has proven false and become GPU mineable.
Hi there Wh1teKn1ght, good and important question!! See this:
There are many GPU and ASIC resistant crypto-currencies, but they have all been broken and eventually mined by GPUs. Some tried to make mining memory-hard (Scrypt, Litecoin, Yacoin, Memorycoin). Others tried to increase the implementation complexity of the cryptographic hash functions (Quark, et al). However, at the end of the day, all of these efforts were overcome because GPU and ASIC miners are always able to increase their fast access memory capacity and also the complexity of their implementations. (...)
Heavycoin is different because it is designed from its core to be permanently CPU-only. Heavycoin introduces the HEFTY1 cryptographic hash function in order to thwart GPU and ASIC miners by breaking out of the SIMD paradigm. The machine instructions that comprise HEFTY1 vary depending on input data. That is, the particular instructions that are executed will not be the same for each hash guess. Thus, it impossible for a GPU or ASIC to have an advantage over a CPU.
Heavycoin is different because it is designed from its core to be permanently CPU-only. Heavycoin introduces the HEFTY1 cryptographic hash function in order to thwart GPU and ASIC miners by breaking out of the SIMD paradigm. The machine instructions that comprise HEFTY1 vary depending on input data. That is, the particular instructions that are executed will not be the same for each hash guess. Thus, it impossible for a GPU or ASIC to have an advantage over a CPU.
More info: http://heavycoin.github.io/about.html#cpu-only
"Bitcoin and other networks rely only on SHA-256, which was developed by the NSA. The Snowden revolations bring into question the security of SHA-256 and, thus, the true government independence of Bitcoin."
This is absolutely dishonest as SHA-256 is open source known algorithm studied by independent academic word for a decade now. It's irrelevant who was original developer. If we are going to play that game, then
Keccak was approved by NIST (which is also US govt agency). Tor was originally developed by US military. Even the Internet itselfis US military invention.
This is absolutely dishonest as SHA-256 is open source known algorithm studied by independent academic word for a decade now. It's irrelevant who was original developer. If we are going to play that game, then
Keccak was approved by NIST (which is also US govt agency). Tor was originally developed by US military. Even the Internet itselfis US military invention.
Perhaps u misunderstand this statement which is about the fact that ONE SINGLE cryptographic hashfunction can potentially be broken and with it the entire security of the blockchain would be broken
This is not what the site said. He dishonestly implied that US govt secretly controls bitcoin as it uses SHA256. He even mentioned Snowden. This is dishonest propaganda and it tells me the people involved in heavycoin are dishonest.
I don't trust them.
"He dishonestly implied that US govt secretly controls bitcoin as it uses SHA256"
:: I don't see how you read that from the quoted sentence.
U do not have to trust them, all u need is to read their code. that's it. being critical is a very good thing.
& please see my full quote:
Perhaps u misunderstand this statement which is about the fact that ONE SINGLE cryptographic hashfunction can potentially be broken and with it the entire security of the blockchain would be broken
BTW Heavycoin itself used SHA-256 as one of its four cryptographic hash functions as it works by combining "4 well-known cryptographic hash functions (SHA-256, Keccak-512, Grøestl-512 and BLAKE-512) and interleaving these bits into a combined 256-bit hash"
thus it does not at all say SHA-256 is bad.
if u don't like this cautious attitude towards SHA-256 you have all the rights in the world not to care about HVC
BTW Heavycoin itself used SHA-256 as one of its four cryptographic hash functions as it works by combining "4 well-known cryptographic hash functions (SHA-256, Keccak-512, Grøestl-512 and BLAKE-512) and interleaving these bits into a combined 256-bit hash"
thus it does not at all say SHA-256 is bad.
if u don't like this cautious attitude towards SHA-256 you have all the rights in the world not to care about HVC
