This is just plain retarded. Isn't mining supposed to be NOT efficient? I mean, if mining were so efficient, more people will start mining, so difficulty goes op, so mining becomes less efficient. The actual algorithm behind it, whether it be SHA256, Scrypt, or any of the SHA3 candidates like Groestl, doesn't make a shit difference. Well, to some extent, scrypt could make ASIC mining less feasible. Otherwise, no difference whatsoever.
Sounds like a completely useless sales pitch for yet another obsolete coin. Just the makers hoping to get rich quick by this utter "less noise, less heat and less electricity" bullshit.
You are of course correct about the "energy efficiency" assertion.
2x hashrate = 2x difficulty = staus quo
You may observe I have pointed this out myself in the past.
Plus further optimizations will also increase the power draw.
We were planning on dropping the "energy efficient" and "asic resistance" messaging before you politely joined the thread.
The real advantage of Groestl is that it can and is accelerated by the hardware AES support present in most modern Intel CPUs, which helps
reduce the efficiency gap between a CPU and other implementations. The reason Groestl benefits from AES HW support is because Groestl itself bears a striking similarity to AES and utilizes an AES S-box. In this way it is destined to work well on all platforms with AES implementations, including latest generation ARM procs. Additionally the Groestl algo demonstrates a resistance to paralleization with would reduce ASIC advantage.
The new messaging will be along the line of:
Excellent performance on multiple platforms + reduced ASIC advantage* = ultimate PoW = democratized mining = Groestlcoin.
This statement is true. Not PR.
thanks
Kazimir. You have helped to teach me self-restraint
*Adam Back cited this as being a measure of an improved PoW algo.
btw it may be that AES HW implementations can help reduce the energy footprint of the network as a whole.
