Not really BS that LTC statement. I was all over litecointalk.org around this matter. I was both horrified and enlightened.
The problem is once you have a whole ecosystem of adopting merchants, exchanges, mega pools and ASIC companies dropping in millions, an algorithmic hardfork is a nightmare. I for one think (and responded) that one thing is end users and solo miners, another is companies that have huge interests in the currency. They have the responsibility to accommodate updates/coding if they are professionals. But LTC devs are clearly dropping their pants on this one. They have nothing to bring to the table, so hanging on to what they've got, and centralising logarithmically.
A hard fork is on a very different level that say, a Heartbleed patch in the QT. You certainly can't do it like all small time alt.coins. "hey guys, must update the client NOW, fork at block XYZ"
Once the currency gains momentum, get a life of their own, things change. I do understand LTC, but LTC brings nothing to the table except 2.5mins tx time and stronger security vs SHA-256 - which is exactly why I'm abandoning LTC. Furthermore, they're hanging on to spot nº2 because big chip-bucks are entering the arena. All for the wrong reasons. Lee is proposing a Doge merge, but that Doge must fork. wtf ?! LOL - more red flag that I've ever seen before.
Darkcoins has value like no other with DarkSend. And I don't believe X11 is more vulnerable. I'm not a pro, but I think certain parameters can be changed in X11 that will puzzle ASIC, without the need of a fork... ? Is this good reasoning? Maybe just the miners need a new software to hash?
In any case, lost faith in LTC.
Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6262. (Read 9723748 times)
April 23, 2014, 01:17:35 PM
April 23, 2014, 01:13:25 PM
Buying 13 BTC worth of DRK tonight to allow me to enter the DRK rich list top 10. The future is now.
April 23, 2014, 01:08:03 PM
The Litecoin developers were asked to look into x11 as well as part of their review on the merits of changing the LTC scrypt algo:
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18166.msg152706#msg152706
Quote
Since Charlie wrote about the other aspects pertaining to confusion, this focuses mainly on the technical and economic issues.
Fallacy: Slower PoW is Safe from ASIC’s?
The escalating “N” proposals all suffer from the issue where increasingly slow PoW by design makes it much slower to verify, thereby worsening block propagation latency across the multi-hop P2P network. Block propagation latency is already a growing problem on the Bitcoin network where larger blocks take longer to traverse the network. With an escalating memory PoW the smallest of blocks would suffer from increased propagation delay. At best this means increased annoyance from more frequent accidental orphans. At worst, higher propagation latency reduces the cost of perverse mining behaviors like double-spending attacks.
Furthermore it is doubtful that escalating N would be truly ASIC proof. Since the deployment schedule of future N is known, near-term ASIC’s could cut costs as they need not implement distant future N in hardware because early generation custom hardware will be unable to compete on power cost with later generation custom hardware. We already see this today with first generation Avalon and ASICMINER miners, currently so power cost uncompetitive that they are being given away at the cost of disposal.
Others have attempted to solve the issue of greater propagation latency with a new PoW that is very memory-hard to mine but not to verify, and thus fast to validate. That was the goal of Bitshares Momentum. Unfortunately for them, many of their past designs were broken within minutes on the Bitcoin forum. This demonstrates how hazardous it can be to implement your own algorithm. Even the currently used Momentum has a TMTO attack proven on GPU bad enough that the $5k bounty was paid out. adam3us said, “i think gmaxwell argument was if the memory hw required per compute hw was small enough to fit within the blank space required to not overheat the chip, then it doesnt really slow the hw down. and i guess it ends up being much more parallel and faster than you can do on a GPU”
XPM may not be safe either. adam3us said, “i was thinking people might be setting their hopes in primecoin PoW as another option because it involves bignums ... eg there are SSL accelerated/bignum accelerator hw. so probably that can be done also … seems like a game of cat and mouse where hw wins if there eventually is enough incentive to build the hw”
In these examples, they made hashes more complex and increased the cost of ASIC development, but if your coin becomes popular enough then ASIC’s become economically feasible.
X11 is Far Worse
X11 suffers from the problems stemming from increased propagation latency and slow verification, and adds even worse susceptibility to ASIC advantage. It is a mere mishmash of 11 separate algorithms that are now GPU mineable (according to Darkcoin’s homepage). Anything GPU mineable can be implemented in custom hardware. To make matters worse, ASIC’s could even have a major speedup advantage over GPU’s. adam3mus said, “it does seem likely that eg if the unused space due to heat can be filled with the other hashes, then it can all be pipelined together and no slowdown. the only cost is replicating different hash functions which doesnt seem particularly hard”
So a switch to X11 only delays the inevitable. Switching the hash to X11 would only spite the current manufacturers while ultimately failing in the goal of preventing ASIC’s later. It gets even worse. If the cost of entry for a particular PoW is very high by design, that increases the chance of fewer competing manufacturers entering a market. This is the worst possible outcome for any Bitcoin-like network that relies upon large quantities of greedy miners to outdo each other to maintain network security.
Fallacy: Slower PoW is Safe from ASIC’s?
The escalating “N” proposals all suffer from the issue where increasingly slow PoW by design makes it much slower to verify, thereby worsening block propagation latency across the multi-hop P2P network. Block propagation latency is already a growing problem on the Bitcoin network where larger blocks take longer to traverse the network. With an escalating memory PoW the smallest of blocks would suffer from increased propagation delay. At best this means increased annoyance from more frequent accidental orphans. At worst, higher propagation latency reduces the cost of perverse mining behaviors like double-spending attacks.
Furthermore it is doubtful that escalating N would be truly ASIC proof. Since the deployment schedule of future N is known, near-term ASIC’s could cut costs as they need not implement distant future N in hardware because early generation custom hardware will be unable to compete on power cost with later generation custom hardware. We already see this today with first generation Avalon and ASICMINER miners, currently so power cost uncompetitive that they are being given away at the cost of disposal.
Others have attempted to solve the issue of greater propagation latency with a new PoW that is very memory-hard to mine but not to verify, and thus fast to validate. That was the goal of Bitshares Momentum. Unfortunately for them, many of their past designs were broken within minutes on the Bitcoin forum. This demonstrates how hazardous it can be to implement your own algorithm. Even the currently used Momentum has a TMTO attack proven on GPU bad enough that the $5k bounty was paid out. adam3us said, “i think gmaxwell argument was if the memory hw required per compute hw was small enough to fit within the blank space required to not overheat the chip, then it doesnt really slow the hw down. and i guess it ends up being much more parallel and faster than you can do on a GPU”
XPM may not be safe either. adam3us said, “i was thinking people might be setting their hopes in primecoin PoW as another option because it involves bignums ... eg there are SSL accelerated/bignum accelerator hw. so probably that can be done also … seems like a game of cat and mouse where hw wins if there eventually is enough incentive to build the hw”
In these examples, they made hashes more complex and increased the cost of ASIC development, but if your coin becomes popular enough then ASIC’s become economically feasible.
X11 is Far Worse
X11 suffers from the problems stemming from increased propagation latency and slow verification, and adds even worse susceptibility to ASIC advantage. It is a mere mishmash of 11 separate algorithms that are now GPU mineable (according to Darkcoin’s homepage). Anything GPU mineable can be implemented in custom hardware. To make matters worse, ASIC’s could even have a major speedup advantage over GPU’s. adam3mus said, “it does seem likely that eg if the unused space due to heat can be filled with the other hashes, then it can all be pipelined together and no slowdown. the only cost is replicating different hash functions which doesnt seem particularly hard”
So a switch to X11 only delays the inevitable. Switching the hash to X11 would only spite the current manufacturers while ultimately failing in the goal of preventing ASIC’s later. It gets even worse. If the cost of entry for a particular PoW is very high by design, that increases the chance of fewer competing manufacturers entering a market. This is the worst possible outcome for any Bitcoin-like network that relies upon large quantities of greedy miners to outdo each other to maintain network security.
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18166.msg152706#msg152706
More blather and gibberish. The last paragraph here says it all. They do not have a fucking clue, and their coin will be dead inside of 12 months.
April 23, 2014, 01:02:41 PM
The Litecoin developers were asked to look into x11 as well as part of their review on the merits of changing the LTC scrypt algo:
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18166.msg152706#msg152706
Quote
Since Charlie wrote about the other aspects pertaining to confusion, this focuses mainly on the technical and economic issues.
Fallacy: Slower PoW is Safe from ASIC’s?
The escalating “N” proposals all suffer from the issue where increasingly slow PoW by design makes it much slower to verify, thereby worsening block propagation latency across the multi-hop P2P network. Block propagation latency is already a growing problem on the Bitcoin network where larger blocks take longer to traverse the network. With an escalating memory PoW the smallest of blocks would suffer from increased propagation delay. At best this means increased annoyance from more frequent accidental orphans. At worst, higher propagation latency reduces the cost of perverse mining behaviors like double-spending attacks.
Furthermore it is doubtful that escalating N would be truly ASIC proof. Since the deployment schedule of future N is known, near-term ASIC’s could cut costs as they need not implement distant future N in hardware because early generation custom hardware will be unable to compete on power cost with later generation custom hardware. We already see this today with first generation Avalon and ASICMINER miners, currently so power cost uncompetitive that they are being given away at the cost of disposal.
Others have attempted to solve the issue of greater propagation latency with a new PoW that is very memory-hard to mine but not to verify, and thus fast to validate. That was the goal of Bitshares Momentum. Unfortunately for them, many of their past designs were broken within minutes on the Bitcoin forum. This demonstrates how hazardous it can be to implement your own algorithm. Even the currently used Momentum has a TMTO attack proven on GPU bad enough that the $5k bounty was paid out. adam3us said, “i think gmaxwell argument was if the memory hw required per compute hw was small enough to fit within the blank space required to not overheat the chip, then it doesnt really slow the hw down. and i guess it ends up being much more parallel and faster than you can do on a GPU”
XPM may not be safe either. adam3us said, “i was thinking people might be setting their hopes in primecoin PoW as another option because it involves bignums ... eg there are SSL accelerated/bignum accelerator hw. so probably that can be done also … seems like a game of cat and mouse where hw wins if there eventually is enough incentive to build the hw”
In these examples, they made hashes more complex and increased the cost of ASIC development, but if your coin becomes popular enough then ASIC’s become economically feasible.
X11 is Far Worse
X11 suffers from the problems stemming from increased propagation latency and slow verification, and adds even worse susceptibility to ASIC advantage. It is a mere mishmash of 11 separate algorithms that are now GPU mineable (according to Darkcoin’s homepage). Anything GPU mineable can be implemented in custom hardware. To make matters worse, ASIC’s could even have a major speedup advantage over GPU’s. adam3mus said, “it does seem likely that eg if the unused space due to heat can be filled with the other hashes, then it can all be pipelined together and no slowdown. the only cost is replicating different hash functions which doesnt seem particularly hard”
So a switch to X11 only delays the inevitable. Switching the hash to X11 would only spite the current manufacturers while ultimately failing in the goal of preventing ASIC’s later. It gets even worse. If the cost of entry for a particular PoW is very high by design, that increases the chance of fewer competing manufacturers entering a market. This is the worst possible outcome for any Bitcoin-like network that relies upon large quantities of greedy miners to outdo each other to maintain network security.
Fallacy: Slower PoW is Safe from ASIC’s?
The escalating “N” proposals all suffer from the issue where increasingly slow PoW by design makes it much slower to verify, thereby worsening block propagation latency across the multi-hop P2P network. Block propagation latency is already a growing problem on the Bitcoin network where larger blocks take longer to traverse the network. With an escalating memory PoW the smallest of blocks would suffer from increased propagation delay. At best this means increased annoyance from more frequent accidental orphans. At worst, higher propagation latency reduces the cost of perverse mining behaviors like double-spending attacks.
Furthermore it is doubtful that escalating N would be truly ASIC proof. Since the deployment schedule of future N is known, near-term ASIC’s could cut costs as they need not implement distant future N in hardware because early generation custom hardware will be unable to compete on power cost with later generation custom hardware. We already see this today with first generation Avalon and ASICMINER miners, currently so power cost uncompetitive that they are being given away at the cost of disposal.
Others have attempted to solve the issue of greater propagation latency with a new PoW that is very memory-hard to mine but not to verify, and thus fast to validate. That was the goal of Bitshares Momentum. Unfortunately for them, many of their past designs were broken within minutes on the Bitcoin forum. This demonstrates how hazardous it can be to implement your own algorithm. Even the currently used Momentum has a TMTO attack proven on GPU bad enough that the $5k bounty was paid out. adam3us said, “i think gmaxwell argument was if the memory hw required per compute hw was small enough to fit within the blank space required to not overheat the chip, then it doesnt really slow the hw down. and i guess it ends up being much more parallel and faster than you can do on a GPU”
XPM may not be safe either. adam3us said, “i was thinking people might be setting their hopes in primecoin PoW as another option because it involves bignums ... eg there are SSL accelerated/bignum accelerator hw. so probably that can be done also … seems like a game of cat and mouse where hw wins if there eventually is enough incentive to build the hw”
In these examples, they made hashes more complex and increased the cost of ASIC development, but if your coin becomes popular enough then ASIC’s become economically feasible.
X11 is Far Worse
X11 suffers from the problems stemming from increased propagation latency and slow verification, and adds even worse susceptibility to ASIC advantage. It is a mere mishmash of 11 separate algorithms that are now GPU mineable (according to Darkcoin’s homepage). Anything GPU mineable can be implemented in custom hardware. To make matters worse, ASIC’s could even have a major speedup advantage over GPU’s. adam3mus said, “it does seem likely that eg if the unused space due to heat can be filled with the other hashes, then it can all be pipelined together and no slowdown. the only cost is replicating different hash functions which doesnt seem particularly hard”
So a switch to X11 only delays the inevitable. Switching the hash to X11 would only spite the current manufacturers while ultimately failing in the goal of preventing ASIC’s later. It gets even worse. If the cost of entry for a particular PoW is very high by design, that increases the chance of fewer competing manufacturers entering a market. This is the worst possible outcome for any Bitcoin-like network that relies upon large quantities of greedy miners to outdo each other to maintain network security.
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18166.msg152706#msg152706
April 23, 2014, 12:58:29 PM
I found some interesting commentary about X11 in the dogecoin subreddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/23fk2i/very_long_very_serious_development_summary_week/
http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/23fk2i/very_long_very_serious_development_summary_week/
Quote
At the time of writing the development team has no plans to change proof of work algorithm outside of the eventuality of a major security break to Scrypt. We are focusing on mitigation approaches in case of a 51% attack, and adoption of the coin as the most sustainable approaches to dealing with this risk.
The X11 algorithm has been proposed as an alternative proof of work algorithm. X11, for those unaware, was introduced with Darkcoin. It’s a combination of 11 different SHA-3 candidate algorithms, using multiple rounds of hashing. The main advantage championed for Darkcoin is that current implementations run cooler on GPU hardware. Beyond that, there’s a lot of confusion over what it does and does not do. As I’m neither an algorithms or electronics specialist, I recruited a colleague who previously worked on the CERN computing grid to assist, and the following is primarily his analysis. A full technical report is coming for anyone who really likes detail, this is just a summary:
A lot of people presume X11 is ASIC resistant; it’s not. Candidate algorithms for SHA-3 were assessed on a number of criteria, including simplicity to implement in hardware. All 11 algorithms have been implemented in FPGA hardware, and several in ASIC hardware already. The use of multiple algorithms does significantly complicate ASIC development, as it means the resulting chip would likely be extremely large. This has consequences for production, as the area of a chip is the main determining factor for likelihood of an error in the chip.
The short version being that while yes it would take significant resources to make an efficient ASIC for X11, for a long time Scrypt was considered infeasible to adapt to ASICs. As stated earlier, any move would most likely be nothing more than an extremely expensive and risky delaying manoeuvre. ASIC efficiency would also depend heavily on ability to optimise the combination of the algorithms; a naive implementation would run at around the rate of the slowest hashing algorithm, however if any common elements could be found amongst the algorithms, it may be that this could be improved upon significantly
There are also significant areas of concern with regards to X11. The “thermal efficiency” is most likely a result of the algorithm being a poor fit for GPU hardware. This means that GPU mining is closer to CPU mining (the X11 Wiki article suggests a ratio of 3:1 for GPU/CPU mining performance), however it also means that if a way of was found to improve performance there could be significantly faster software miners, leading to an ASIC-like edge without any of the hardware development costs. The component algorithms are all relatively new, and several were rejected during the SHA-3 competition for security concerns (see http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/Round2/documents/Round2_Report_NISTIR_7764.pdf for full details). Security criteria for SHA-3 algorithms was also focused on ability to generate collisions, rather than on producing hashes with specific criteria (such as number of leading 0s, which is how proof of work is usually assessed).
X11 is a fascinating algorithm for new coins, however I would consider it exceptionally high risk for any existing coin to adopt.
The X11 algorithm has been proposed as an alternative proof of work algorithm. X11, for those unaware, was introduced with Darkcoin. It’s a combination of 11 different SHA-3 candidate algorithms, using multiple rounds of hashing. The main advantage championed for Darkcoin is that current implementations run cooler on GPU hardware. Beyond that, there’s a lot of confusion over what it does and does not do. As I’m neither an algorithms or electronics specialist, I recruited a colleague who previously worked on the CERN computing grid to assist, and the following is primarily his analysis. A full technical report is coming for anyone who really likes detail, this is just a summary:
A lot of people presume X11 is ASIC resistant; it’s not. Candidate algorithms for SHA-3 were assessed on a number of criteria, including simplicity to implement in hardware. All 11 algorithms have been implemented in FPGA hardware, and several in ASIC hardware already. The use of multiple algorithms does significantly complicate ASIC development, as it means the resulting chip would likely be extremely large. This has consequences for production, as the area of a chip is the main determining factor for likelihood of an error in the chip.
The short version being that while yes it would take significant resources to make an efficient ASIC for X11, for a long time Scrypt was considered infeasible to adapt to ASICs. As stated earlier, any move would most likely be nothing more than an extremely expensive and risky delaying manoeuvre. ASIC efficiency would also depend heavily on ability to optimise the combination of the algorithms; a naive implementation would run at around the rate of the slowest hashing algorithm, however if any common elements could be found amongst the algorithms, it may be that this could be improved upon significantly
There are also significant areas of concern with regards to X11. The “thermal efficiency” is most likely a result of the algorithm being a poor fit for GPU hardware. This means that GPU mining is closer to CPU mining (the X11 Wiki article suggests a ratio of 3:1 for GPU/CPU mining performance), however it also means that if a way of was found to improve performance there could be significantly faster software miners, leading to an ASIC-like edge without any of the hardware development costs. The component algorithms are all relatively new, and several were rejected during the SHA-3 competition for security concerns (see http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/Round2/documents/Round2_Report_NISTIR_7764.pdf for full details). Security criteria for SHA-3 algorithms was also focused on ability to generate collisions, rather than on producing hashes with specific criteria (such as number of leading 0s, which is how proof of work is usually assessed).
X11 is a fascinating algorithm for new coins, however I would consider it exceptionally high risk for any existing coin to adopt.
Some of that sounds like pure nonsense:
Quote
The short version being that while yes it would take significant resources to make an efficient ASIC for X11, for a long time Scrypt was considered infeasible to adapt to ASICs. As stated earlier, any move would most likely be nothing more than an extremely expensive and risky delaying manoeuvre.
What's so extremely expensive about a mandatory wallet update? Which is all any fork would amount to as far as 99.9% of users are concerned. Risky? LOL. If you've already invested heavily in expensive ASICs, sure.
Quote
There are also significant areas of concern with regards to X11. The “thermal efficiency” is most likely a result of the algorithm being a poor
fit for GPU hardware. This means that GPU mining is closer to CPU mining (the X11 Wiki article suggests a ratio of 3:1 for GPU/CPU mining performance),
however it also means that if a way of was found to improve performance there could be significantly faster software miners, leading to an ASIC-like edge without any of the hardware development costs.
fit for GPU hardware. This means that GPU mining is closer to CPU mining (the X11 Wiki article suggests a ratio of 3:1 for GPU/CPU mining performance),
however it also means that if a way of was found to improve performance there could be significantly faster software miners, leading to an ASIC-like edge without any of the hardware development costs.
Well folks, yes, miners could get faster. But miners would still be widely distributed GPUs, not inevitably-centralised ASICs. And faster miners aren't exactly a problem.
April 23, 2014, 12:56:45 PM
so its a problem with mintpal? still only 9 DRK there. 18 DRK missing.
Yeah. You can have multiple payments to the same address in 1 transaction and it's legal, so it's something on their side.
April 23, 2014, 12:48:37 PM
Looks like someone just launched a new "Xcoin".
Don't sweat it, there is no confusion possible.
April 23, 2014, 12:43:38 PM
I found some interesting commentary about X11 in the dogecoin subreddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/23fk2i/very_long_very_serious_development_summary_week/
http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/23fk2i/very_long_very_serious_development_summary_week/
Quote
At the time of writing the development team has no plans to change proof of work algorithm outside of the eventuality of a major security break to Scrypt. We are focusing on mitigation approaches in case of a 51% attack, and adoption of the coin as the most sustainable approaches to dealing with this risk.
The X11 algorithm has been proposed as an alternative proof of work algorithm. X11, for those unaware, was introduced with Darkcoin. It’s a combination of 11 different SHA-3 candidate algorithms, using multiple rounds of hashing. The main advantage championed for Darkcoin is that current implementations run cooler on GPU hardware. Beyond that, there’s a lot of confusion over what it does and does not do. As I’m neither an algorithms or electronics specialist, I recruited a colleague who previously worked on the CERN computing grid to assist, and the following is primarily his analysis. A full technical report is coming for anyone who really likes detail, this is just a summary:
A lot of people presume X11 is ASIC resistant; it’s not. Candidate algorithms for SHA-3 were assessed on a number of criteria, including simplicity to implement in hardware. All 11 algorithms have been implemented in FPGA hardware, and several in ASIC hardware already. The use of multiple algorithms does significantly complicate ASIC development, as it means the resulting chip would likely be extremely large. This has consequences for production, as the area of a chip is the main determining factor for likelihood of an error in the chip.
The short version being that while yes it would take significant resources to make an efficient ASIC for X11, for a long time Scrypt was considered infeasible to adapt to ASICs. As stated earlier, any move would most likely be nothing more than an extremely expensive and risky delaying manoeuvre. ASIC efficiency would also depend heavily on ability to optimise the combination of the algorithms; a naive implementation would run at around the rate of the slowest hashing algorithm, however if any common elements could be found amongst the algorithms, it may be that this could be improved upon significantly
There are also significant areas of concern with regards to X11. The “thermal efficiency” is most likely a result of the algorithm being a poor fit for GPU hardware. This means that GPU mining is closer to CPU mining (the X11 Wiki article suggests a ratio of 3:1 for GPU/CPU mining performance), however it also means that if a way of was found to improve performance there could be significantly faster software miners, leading to an ASIC-like edge without any of the hardware development costs. The component algorithms are all relatively new, and several were rejected during the SHA-3 competition for security concerns (see http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/Round2/documents/Round2_Report_NISTIR_7764.pdf for full details). Security criteria for SHA-3 algorithms was also focused on ability to generate collisions, rather than on producing hashes with specific criteria (such as number of leading 0s, which is how proof of work is usually assessed).
X11 is a fascinating algorithm for new coins, however I would consider it exceptionally high risk for any existing coin to adopt.
The X11 algorithm has been proposed as an alternative proof of work algorithm. X11, for those unaware, was introduced with Darkcoin. It’s a combination of 11 different SHA-3 candidate algorithms, using multiple rounds of hashing. The main advantage championed for Darkcoin is that current implementations run cooler on GPU hardware. Beyond that, there’s a lot of confusion over what it does and does not do. As I’m neither an algorithms or electronics specialist, I recruited a colleague who previously worked on the CERN computing grid to assist, and the following is primarily his analysis. A full technical report is coming for anyone who really likes detail, this is just a summary:
A lot of people presume X11 is ASIC resistant; it’s not. Candidate algorithms for SHA-3 were assessed on a number of criteria, including simplicity to implement in hardware. All 11 algorithms have been implemented in FPGA hardware, and several in ASIC hardware already. The use of multiple algorithms does significantly complicate ASIC development, as it means the resulting chip would likely be extremely large. This has consequences for production, as the area of a chip is the main determining factor for likelihood of an error in the chip.
The short version being that while yes it would take significant resources to make an efficient ASIC for X11, for a long time Scrypt was considered infeasible to adapt to ASICs. As stated earlier, any move would most likely be nothing more than an extremely expensive and risky delaying manoeuvre. ASIC efficiency would also depend heavily on ability to optimise the combination of the algorithms; a naive implementation would run at around the rate of the slowest hashing algorithm, however if any common elements could be found amongst the algorithms, it may be that this could be improved upon significantly
There are also significant areas of concern with regards to X11. The “thermal efficiency” is most likely a result of the algorithm being a poor fit for GPU hardware. This means that GPU mining is closer to CPU mining (the X11 Wiki article suggests a ratio of 3:1 for GPU/CPU mining performance), however it also means that if a way of was found to improve performance there could be significantly faster software miners, leading to an ASIC-like edge without any of the hardware development costs. The component algorithms are all relatively new, and several were rejected during the SHA-3 competition for security concerns (see http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/Round2/documents/Round2_Report_NISTIR_7764.pdf for full details). Security criteria for SHA-3 algorithms was also focused on ability to generate collisions, rather than on producing hashes with specific criteria (such as number of leading 0s, which is how proof of work is usually assessed).
X11 is a fascinating algorithm for new coins, however I would consider it exceptionally high risk for any existing coin to adopt.
April 23, 2014, 12:13:48 PM
Looks like someone just launched a new "Xcoin". https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-ipcoxcoinx-100-pos-fourth-ipco-stage-only-3-weeks-left-580444
For those who don't know, that was DarkCoins original name. Which merged with another xcoin I believe. ......now there is another xcoin, looking like a potential IPO scam, just what we need.
For those who don't know, that was DarkCoins original name. Which merged with another xcoin I believe. ......now there is another xcoin, looking like a potential IPO scam, just what we need.
Another shitcoin that lacks innovation. No need to think twice about it.
I don't think anyone confuses the two. Darkcoin is not very well known yet, and no one remebers it ever being called xcoin.
April 23, 2014, 12:07:15 PM
Looks like someone just launched a new "Xcoin". https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-ipcoxcoinx-100-pos-fourth-ipco-stage-only-3-weeks-left-580444
For those who don't know, that was DarkCoins original name. Which merged with another xcoin I believe. ......now there is another xcoin, looking like a potential IPO scam, just what we need.
For those who don't know, that was DarkCoins original name. Which merged with another xcoin I believe. ......now there is another xcoin, looking like a potential IPO scam, just what we need.
April 23, 2014, 12:00:33 PM
The 2 pumps we saw in a week were relatively similar, same amount of btc's and same top. There hasn't been much action in the past month relative to prices... Is there something brewing?
April 23, 2014, 11:59:11 AM
Participating in Darkcoin is participating in a moment in history. Never before has there been a decentralised anonymous digital currency - virtual cash.
Errmm.. wow... hmmm.. ok... err... yeah ok I'll let this one slip. next line
Quote
eCash has been the pursuit of some of the most brilliant mathematical minds since the 1980s. Darkcoin has brought that pursuit to an end.
errm... yeah, again, I'll let it slip. The pursuit was for a platform, not the concept or exequibility.
Quote
The adoption of the internet, email an online payment was very slow to build and was typified by mistrust, fear and technophobia.
If by "slow" you mean the fastest and most fiercely driven technological breakthrough in the entire history of man... then ok.
Quote
During the early years of Amazon's life, they employed call centre staff to take online payments over the telephone.
Modems do that, no real people. What they did was browse an internet catalog, and order by phone. How old are you? Everyone did that back in the day. You gave out your credit card info, they'd type it in, and process it through a regular banking service. No one ever received a payment over the phone. How can one take an online payment over the phone anyways? Read out the encryption protocol whitepaper to prove you have it? fax it over to them?
Quote
The initial challenges of changing human behaviour to make people feel comfortable with the internet may have taken 10-15 years, but the ubiquity of the online space and the impact that it has had on everyday life are a benefit to digital currencies.
That says nothing. At best, the internet, as a platform, is great for digital currencies - that I do agree. Not what you're saying.
Quote
Just as the early years of the internet faced challenges, digital currencies will face similar adoption constraints. However, because of the success of the internet and the benefits that consumers, businesses and governments derive from its existence, the rate of adoption is expected to be much faster for successful crypto currencies, but only if they can overcome the barriers of fear, mistrust and technophobia.
search a wiki on "The Song of La Palice" and you will understand the critique to this paragraph.
Seriously dude, that was sentence by sentence, and only in your intro Executive Summary. Don't have time for more. Beside, the rest is copy/rephrase/paste
I applaud your enthusiasm though.
April 23, 2014, 11:51:50 AM
- Why does the problem exist (i.e. what's the specific attack vector for taking a masternode's earned payment?)
There's really no easy way to pay a dynamic address. If we accepted any address, the payments to masternodes would basically become optional. We'd see large solo miners making payments to themselves instead. So I came up with a voting system.
- Does the voting have a manual component, or is it fully automated?
Miners will vote for whomever they believe is the current masternode, this is completely automatic.
- Can the voting be gamed? Does it introduce bias? Might I miss out on masternode payments if I for some reason don't get enough votes?
It would take 51% of the network to game it. You would need to be able to solve 5 blocks and vote for an address that wasn't suppose to be paid. The whole network should know who won, so it will be extremely unlikely to miss a payment.
April 23, 2014, 11:38:54 AM
Guys, if we want the DRK price to stabilize at higher levels then believers of DRK should not sell around 20 looking to buy again around 15. This "shorting" technique is fine but I think is counterproductive at this point. Lets hold and if you want more DRK just pay the current prices which is a great investment anyway, that way we dont create extra selling pressure. Just my 2 duffs.
+99
Yup, but I think there is no way to avoid this:
-DRK has one of the most clear price channels between the serious coins, so day traders and other speculators will always be around.
-Some early entrants have a lot and some are full time dedicated to this project (please let's not get into that discussion again). It is normal that, if they are unloading a part, they want to optimize it. We all would do the same.
April 23, 2014, 11:30:41 AM
is the darkcoin wallet going to have an encrypted message service? i think that would be a cool little feature.
What would be really cool is an email system as well.
Facebook, twitter, linkedin, etc...they all used email to grow their user base. They linked to your email account and then got you to send connect messages to your contacts.
That's how to create a network effect.
Why not send an email saying 'Hi, I just sent you 10 DRK.....[with a footer saying] - If you don't have a wallet to access your money, you can download it from here.....and you will be able to access your eCash immediately'
Wow you are indeed a troll. What a brilliantly polished turd your waxing there... You don't understand DRK at all. LOL
No man!! Sorry, quoting went wrong!! I meant coins101 is the troll !! Edited my post - its a terrible horrible stupid idea that totally defeats DRK's purpose.
That's helpful feedback thanks.
Could you help me with some editing so I get things right https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6335710
cheers.
April 23, 2014, 11:26:50 AM
is the darkcoin wallet going to have an encrypted message service? i think that would be a cool little feature.
What would be really cool is an email system as well.
Facebook, twitter, linkedin, etc...they all used email to grow their user base. They linked to your email account and then got you to send connect messages to your contacts.
That's how to create a network effect.
Why not send an email saying 'Hi, I just sent you 10 DRK.....[with a footer saying] - If you don't have a wallet to access your money, you can download it from here.....and you will be able to access your eCash immediately'
Wow you are indeed a troll. What a brilliantly polished turd your waxing there... You don't understand DRK at all. LOL
No man!! Sorry, quoting went wrong!! I meant coins101 is the troll !! Edited my post - its a terrible horrible stupid idea that totally defeats DRK's purpose.
Just cashed out of a little cloud mining I had on the side, and gobbled up another 350 DRK's.
April 23, 2014, 11:23:26 AM
It just passed Vertcoin. As exciting as these pumps are, I hope panic buying phase gets over to stabilize at these levels for a bit. I think many are finally getting impressed by the community around the coin. Last few pages have been great read with lots of new ideas from new posters.
Still going to say MORE MASTERNODES please. The network should stand out making it impossible to duplicate down the road for any cloners.
Next person to quote petecamey gets on my ignore list and I have never used that before (not even for hyungsukmom, LuvAnonCoin et al)
Still going to say MORE MASTERNODES please. The network should stand out making it impossible to duplicate down the road for any cloners.
Next person to quote petecamey gets on my ignore list and I have never used that before (not even for hyungsukmom, LuvAnonCoin et al)
I'll be glad to set up a masternode. But I need an idiots guide to put it up on an amazon instance or something like that.
My first masternode is up and running, firewall protected. I'm planning on setting up my second master node very soon with full DDOS protection. But I don't want to invest in this cost too early before the masternode payments start. But I feel that should hopefuuly be soon. So getting ready to launch.
I can't get the thought of DarkSend being a laughing stock and falling on it's face due to the nodes being DDOS'ed.... It's a classic thing where action will be taken too late.
April 23, 2014, 11:18:33 AM
is bitmessage anonymous with encrypted messaging and a payment system for anynomous transactions built into it, because that's what people would love, being able to with one program not only pay for something but give your shipping information etc, or just chat without some government agency sticking there nose in. just throwing it out there but i would use it and i'm sure a lot of other people would 2.
April 23, 2014, 11:12:01 AM
is the darkcoin wallet going to have an encrypted message service? i think that would be a cool little feature.
What would be really cool is an email system as well.
Facebook, twitter, linkedin, etc...they all used email to grow their user base. They linked to your email account and then got you to send connect messages to your contacts.
That's how to create a network effect.
Why not send an email saying 'Hi, I just sent you 10 DRK.....[with a footer saying] - If you don't have a wallet to access your money, you can download it from here.....and you will be able to access your eCash immediately'
there is Bitmessage.
//
works like a coin,
but the system forgets messages that are older than N(time).
no long log.
no need to store the spam in the blockchain.
used it for a while.
security needs some audit.
userbase needs to grow to be a success.
April 23, 2014, 11:11:14 AM
is the darkcoin wallet going to have an encrypted message service? i think that would be a cool little feature.
What would be really cool is an email system as well.
Facebook, twitter, linkedin, etc...they all used email to grow their user base. They linked to your email account and then got you to send connect messages to your contacts.
That's how to create a network effect.
Why not send an email saying 'Hi, I just sent you 10 DRK.....[with a footer saying] - If you don't have a wallet to access your money, you can download it from here.....and you will be able to access your eCash immediately'
Wow you are indeed a troll. What a brilliantly polished turd your waxing there... You don't understand DRK at all. LOL
Jump to: