Topic: ★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit - page 1373. (Read 3058926 times)

I was wondering the same thing. This is what I foresee, the algo change will cause a blip in the radar. This will come from the people like us, who understand coding and the innovation that DGB is. A blip in the radar will bring lurkers, people with money but no tech know how. Then, depending on what this "serious investors" entails and Digi-pay, the blip turns into a rush, first bull trap, outer orbit, second bull trap, moon, then correction. I hope that Jared and the devs understand how important announcements are, its how all of these pump and dump alt coins live. Now take something like DGB and bring all of the other alt money in, we could see another DRK graph.

I'm curious if the announcement is strictly an algo change or if it is an algo change plus more!
By more I mean coin reduction, pos....etc.  Seems to be the trend the last month or so.

when im mining digibyte is here: https://dgb.luckyminers.com

Can someone please give me the link to the best DGB pool?

I would like to start mining this coin again and all my old pools are now gone.

I see your points, but with regards to your first point, I don't see where the mining program and the algo being mined are related. If someone comes up with a more efficient mining program for GPU/CPU use, that would be good news for the traditional miner. The only problem would be if ASICs were to somehow implement that program. At that point you simply throw in a double checkpoint, or whatever else small program change that the new ASIC did not anticipate, and you've rendered them obsolete for your coin. If that isn't enough, then you go with the "big guns" and implement those big changes you've been working on for months like PoS and/or PoT and/or whatever else you've got up your sleeve. Software is always faster and easier to change than hardware.

With regards to your second point, I agree that the more there are of you using the same algo, or same "strain" of algo, the more succulent that group becomes in the eyes of ASIC developers, and, obviously, the smaller the group, the opposite. On the other hand, we've got the principle of "strength in numbers" with more devs working together to further develop a mutually agreed upon standard when dealing with a larger group. There are two sides to that coin.

I think I completely agree with you that even a small fork can be dangerous, but there comes a time when your back is up against the wall, and you've got to do something. That's why I'm minimalistic with my suggestions, and why I stress leveraging the threat of going head to head with any future challenges from potential ASIC manufactures. It's all about buying time, and then doing your absolute best, but with baby steps as it were - those who go "all in" very often get their heads handed to them.

BTW, on the efficency front, something I didn't mention earlier was that I was mining DMD with cgminer before the fork to Groestl and continue to mine it with some machines now (but with today's price crush, that might not last much longer), and my coins mined amount per scrypt adjusted Mh/s since DMD settled down after the change (with a similar scrypt adjusted network hashrate and diff) is exactly the same as before - same identical test machine, same network hashrate and diff, and the long term average is the same. Also, I've been mining EXE (scrypt-n vertminer) side by side with DMD (diamond version of the groestl kernel sgminer) for the last 10 days or so, and the output in BTC terms is almost a mirror image as well, with the difference being that I've got a 45% reduction in electricity costs with DMD. That's what I consider to be more efficient. That's first hand experience. You can also go to coinwarz, of course, and enter real time hashrates and electricity costs, and see for yourself that even the best scrytp coins (14 day average screen) aren't even making those levels of BTC equivalent output to begin with (leaving electricity costs completely aside), so you could say that sgminer is super-efficient compared to cgminer on those coins.

Frankly, IF you're going to make a change, it looks like a no-brainer (always adhearing to the KISS principle), and if you don't, it looks obvious that you're sentencing your miners to higher electricty costs, over stressing of their equipment, and an eventual ultimate defeat to the ASICs as they drive the coin's value to zero in the process.

But the point is that once someone does that then we are back to hot miners again, no?  being inefficient simply means that it will be that way temporarily...until it's worth someone's while to do something about that.

Also, if we go with an algo which several or many other coins go there will be yet another hard fork down the road because, like it or not, asics will be developed for that too. Even one fork can be extremely dangerous for a coin & this will be Digibyte's second so rather than just jump on the bandwagon of the algo of the minute I hope (and believe that Jared is in fact) taking his time to make sure this fork will secure the network for a long time to come.

That's the widely shared knock against X11 that I've seen.


HOWEVER, when you compare the most profitable coins to mine from each algo group (with their corresponding miners), that is to say make a scrypt, scrypt-n, groestl, x11, or quark, comparison on a BTC daily profitability basis, the BTC equivalent IS THE SAME (roughly, on average - there is minimal variance, with sometimes the scrypt coin yielding slightly more, sometimes the scrypt-n, etc.).

If the BTC equivalent that is mined IS THE SAME, that means that sgminer is comparatively MORE efficient, or should I say the MOST efficient miner we have at our disposal to date. . . . even if it may be "inefficient" in its own right.

Test it, and compare data.


Add: and when someone comes up with something better, well, all the better for it!!

As Jared has said before, it saves power because it's inefficient. Which means that as soon as someone builds a more efficient mining program the power draw will go right back up. I'm assuming that's why he is taking his time with the algo change.  And to be honest, if your main concern is power usage then the best thing is to use asics

On the cap issue:
I haven't much experience with coins which have decided to lower their cap but last Digibyte was forked the dev implemented the decreasing reward & has stated many times that he is against lowering the cap. I doubt it will happen because not only is it against his $1-10 target price, but it will initiate a massive pump (and subsequent dump).

Keep up the good work!


Actually this is not a bad idea.

MaxCoin had a big problem with inflation, price was sinking too fast. The developers capped the supply from 250 million to ~106 million and halved the inflation. It helped a lot and new people decided to invest. None of the shareholders protested, this decision was good.

The case would be different for bitcoin or litecoin. Too much hassle to even hard fork. But DigiByte is 5-6 times smaller than even MaxCoin.

I've just finished testing with the modified Quark algorithm used by SecureCoin, and the energy savings are just about 45% as well - with equivalent scrypt mining proceeds being generated.

I've been testing using sgminer ( https://github.com/prettyhatemachine/sph-sgminer to be specific) on Ubuntu 12.04 with a single card machine (AMD A4-5300, 4GB Ram, AMD Radeon HD 7950 TAHITI).

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the same setup also mines X11 (this time mining DarkCoin) with the same energy savings and with the same scrypt mining proceeds.

Power draw from the wall drops from ~330W with scrypt to as low as ~180W with X11, ~183W with Groestl, and ~186W with Quark, and they're all cool and quiet.

These results indicate that, from a purely "energy friendly" point of view, either Quark, Groestl, or X11 could be considered as possibilities for an algo change.

That having been said, while it's still too early to categorically conclude, and more testing needs to be done to definitively say that these energy saving are really due to sgminer's improved mining efficiency, we might well make a preliminary conclusion that sgminer's improved efficiency is the reason behind these energy savings and that they are most likely to be attained using any of the algorithms listed on the sph-sgminer announcement thread.  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-sph-sgminer-multi-coin-multi-algorithm-gpu-miner-added-marucoin-475795

Less than 10 billions will be great... maybe 8 billions in total.... That would be amazing.
I hope there is a plan for this.

7 billion is world population and only 2 billions have internet access and active internet users maybe %20 of this, which comes to 400 million people can have DGB

If total coin becomes 8 billions, then it comes to 20 DGB per person with the values of 100-1000??? dollars per DGB within a few years???

Even 8 billion is maybe too much for a coin (USDe for example have 1.6billion) but I think it is fine. DIGIBYTE please consider reducing the amount of total coins.

THANK YOU !

+1

12 bilions and we can go to the mars in next week

Cool.

 

Any plans to reduce the maximum number of coins or that is set in stone?

Change the algo FTW

If we create new payment network, we will have large requirement digibytes to buy something.

Maybe its billion dollars network. Now, its a dream for us. But keep going, never give up, we will hit 1 dollar.

And, the most important is change the world, not the money.