Oh yeah, that's why BTC is still being mined? Not every coin switches to PoS. It's only a 'phase' for some coins, for others it'll last the entirety of the coin. Not sure you guys understand what a race to the bottom is and definitely doesn't apply here, much like pump and dump does not apply to mining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/a-race-to-or-for-the-bottom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/a-race-to-or-for-the-bottom
I prefer the wikipedia take on the same expression, both on the economics/efficiency standpoint as well as the banana example, but I agree that my interpretation might be too liberal for some.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom
I would summarize by stating that the mining competition naturally drives the overall profit opportunity downwards.
This happens both quantitatively (with more miners competing, there's less profits for each/all of them) as well as qualitatively (each new miner improvement - hardware or software - further denies profits to all the existing miners that do not enjoy the same improvement).
Perhaps, but increases in say efficiency in a kernel, will increase profits for those who have it. It also does not inherently reduce the value of a coin simply by having a more efficient kernel, because coin distribution is set. Usually a race to the bottom, means services and whatever sort of product offered will eventually reduce in quality in a effort to produce it as cheaply as possible... In this case there is no such thing. All else being equal, it's entirely possible for profits to increase as well as coin value rises, as higher hashrate does not mean more coins will be produced.
Miners generally speaking aren't supporters, they keep a coin alive.
That's an oxymoron bensam. If miners are keeping a coin alive, they are most definitely supporters.Generally speaking, it's quite funny how all this mining talk casually ignores the fact that PoW is a race to the bottom. People complaining about small mining profits, would do better to just stop mining, and focus their energies elsewhere. Ah well, I'm probably just at the wrong thread...
Sure and it was meant to sound that way. Because they are a drain on the coin, but at the same time they make sure the network doesn't fall apart. It's a bought service. Miners are a oxymoron. XD
Not sure how GPU mining is characterized by a 'race to the bottom'. Just like miners aren't responsible for 'pump and dumps'. Coins can become more profitable while still minting the same amount of coins per day (relatively speaking). Minting is a controlled release.
Perhaps because you're only here to help us out, you should make kernels for free? Oh... wait... double standards... Ah yeah... Miners are the only ones that can't make money. XD
Christ, you're stupid - mining will still be done, but only by those with the lowest costs. Secondly, P & D applies to mining because as soon as the price goes up, multipools and manual switch miners pile right onto it until it goes down again, or difficulty goes up again.
There isn't a drop in quality in order to offer lower costs and lower costs are relative and can only relate to electricity (which is still fixed depending on where you live). In the case of GPUs, the GPUs are a fixed cost and don't change unless you have some sort of insider connection with a GPU manufacturer. Efficiency of miners can increase, but of course you have to pay for development, which arguably is quality, unless you're asserting your masterpieces are shit-drivel that's pumped out of factories in china for cheap?
You're just operating under the assumption that because miners make less, it's a race to the bottom as more miners compete together. They don't lower the standards of their service and on the contrary, more miners means a raise in difficulty of whatever they're mining, therefore they're actually providing higher quality service the more of them there are. Myagui had the closest use and it was a metaphor. Nice try though.
Pump and Dump refers to putting a excessive amount of money into a market and then as other people are buying it up, the person who pumps it dumps for higher prices, essentially taking money of people who bought in during the pump. This is impossible for miners to do as mining income for a coin is fixed relatively speaking. They take part of someone else's pie, but that has nothing to do with a pump and dump. You're thinking of a literal interpretation of a 'pump and dump' rather then the actual definition, which may be confusing as miners throw the term around the forums randomly and they get misconstrued. Once again, completely wrong.
From my side of the coin, you're the one that's fucking retarded... But you know, anyone can fling around insults, just like they can act like they know what they're talking about.
do we really care about merge mining in anyway 
You do if you want to help small coins out without the inherent problems of a small network due to no one mining it (because of low value). Basically everything I said, no one read and then Liquid said the same thing only while insulting someone else.
I don't want to be that guy... , but can you move this discussion elsewhere... clearly off topic since a couple of pages...
, but can you move this discussion elsewhere... clearly off topic since a couple of pages...Coming from someone who does this all the time... Yeah... and I believe we're talking about merged mining, which pertains to mining, which pertains to us mining with... say... CCminer...
First of all, you're confusing WHY a pump and dump matters - you're correct that the act itself has nothing to do with them. You're not seeing that it has an effect on OTHER SHIT. If the price goes up, miners will jump to that coin until the dump. Do I need to draw it in crayon?
As for costs only relating to electricity, you're being narrow minded. First, GPU mining will end for any successful coin, moving onto ASIC mining, at which point the people manufacturing the best ASICs at the lowest cost and having cheap power will dominate... it IS a race to the bottom, at the end of which you have a few companies who can manufacture these devices and operate private farms.
If you feel acting condescending makes you right, draw with that crayon all you want bro, seems it helps you more then I to get your big pictures out there.
You were talking about multipools, now you're particularly talking about miners (I assume you were referring to them as two seperate things before when you singled out multipools).
Alright so miners... now you're stating that miners basically have nothing to do with a pump and dump... why even talk about them in the first place? Good back pedal dude. In other words, miners have nothing to do with a pump and dump. This is either caused by people manipulating market values (which is a true pump and dump) or people designing shitcoins to be used just that way (also made around a pump and dump, large ipos, fast mining period).
A successful coin does not guarantee it will ever see ASICs (pretty certain you know this already). Notice how no new ASICs were made for Scrypt last year? The only new ones are in the planning phase this year. ASICs take a lot of capital to make and it entirely depends on how feasible it is to make. Since this is completely subjective, how big does a coin need to be before it's successful? DASH? Ethereum? Why aren't there any Ethereum ASICs? Oh yeah...
Kernels are about the closest thing you can get to ASICs for some coins due to feasibility of ASICs and there are definitely kernel developers, but they once again take a decent amount of capital before they'll spit anything out. So unless you mean a race in technology is the equivalent of a race to the bottom you're once again still trying to make something work that has nothing to do with one another.
Nice try dude, still wrong on both accounts... Even 'wronger' now that you're trying to maneuver around things by abandoning your original arguments to make yourself seem right.
hmm.... may-be you should start by implementing the blockheader (technically the other part has been there for ages)
Not for Blake-256. Can be mined with fpga's. It's a loosers game. A 17% faster kernal will not be profitable.
FPGAs and ASICs take awhile to develop (especially ASICs). Vanillacoin is still profitable for instance. Hardware is a completely different ballgame from software and production cycles take much longer and happen in smaller spurts, especially on here where people are basically making everyone recycle the wheel.
