ASIC manufacturing is already more distributed than GPU manufacturing, isn't it?
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
debatable.
Topic: It's as Simple as Supply and Demand (Read 1209 times)
debatable.
its not the supply of hash that hurts coin prices, its the oversupply of coins.
It's my contention that it's the temporary oversupply of artificially cheap coins (relative to what the everyday average Joe can mine at) caused by ASIC mining that keeps prices artificially low (until now, really only seen in practice in BTC, but if we extrapolate to eventual wide scale ASIC scrypt mining, well, let's just say that if you thought prices are low now . . . ), and that could very likely kill the smaller coins before they ever have a chance to recover (after having been permanently abandoned by whatever broad based user group that may have been possible). There would be no second chance for these coins, and as I said in the initial piece, longer term, the premise logically follows to the "bigger", more established coins as well.
its not the supply of hash that hurts coin prices, its the oversupply of coins.
Blame all the devs for killing the market.
Blame all the devs for killing the market.
Folks, in the not too distant future ASICs will be as cheap as GPUs are today and as widely used. Don't be a Luddite. Don't worry. Be happy.
Use of malicious negative trust to suppress free speech discredits the bitcoin community
Use of malicious negative trust to suppress free speech discredits the bitcoin community
having more hash on a chain, doesn't necessarily equal to more security, you know it can simply mean that few people have more hashpower
Still, it means a newcomer will find it harder to muster 51% of the hashing power. Of course, for all we know, 51% of the hashing power of Bitcoin (or Litecoin, or Dogecoin) could already by in the hands of a single party.few people with great hashpower is not that good, can lead to a 51% attack even more easily...
and this will become more true as long as the hashpower keeps increasing, but there are the pools...
having more hash on a chain, doesn't necessarily equal to more security, you know it can simply mean that few people have more hashpower
Still, it means a newcomer will find it harder to muster 51% of the hashing power. Of course, for all we know, 51% of the hashing power of Bitcoin (or Litecoin, or Dogecoin) could already by in the hands of a single party.
having more hash on a chain, doesn't necessarily equal to more security, you know it can simply mean that few people have more hashpower
Have I posted this in the wrong sub-forum?
ASIC manufacturing is already more distributed than GPU manufacturing, isn't it?
I think conventional wisdom says different (ex SHA-256 that is).
The following article concurs with that.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5873594
If you don't care about the security of your coin enough to buy efficient hardware with which to secure it that is fine, there are still coins that people do care about enough to invest fortunes into securing them so despite your constant bait-and-switch running on to new coins abandoning the ones you had created the illusion of investment in by mining them there will be secure coins. Presumably you dump those bait-and-switch scam coins too as well as abandoning them.
ASIC manufacturing is already more distributed than GPU manufacturing, isn't it?
If GPU makers have not yet started building mining farms that might just point to how tiny even the market caps of the highest cap coins currently are, rather than any inherent greater security having only a couple of manufacturers, but currently having a few other lines of application to profit from, might provide.
If GPu makers did decide to get into mining (don't they "burn in" GPUs before shipping them?) it would be interesting to see whether they prefer to use GPUs for that themselves or build something more efficient for the purpose. Fortunately others are already making ASICs for mining available to wider audiences so by the time the GPU makers do decide to get into it they hopefully won't have as close to a monopoly as they have on GPU manufacturing.
-MarkM-
ASIC manufacturing is already more distributed than GPU manufacturing, isn't it?
If GPU makers have not yet started building mining farms that might just point to how tiny even the market caps of the highest cap coins currently are, rather than any inherent greater security having only a couple of manufacturers, but currently having a few other lines of application to profit from, might provide.
If GPu makers did decide to get into mining (don't they "burn in" GPUs before shipping them?) it would be interesting to see whether they prefer to use GPUs for that themselves or build something more efficient for the purpose. Fortunately others are already making ASICs for mining available to wider audiences so by the time the GPU makers do decide to get into it they hopefully won't have as close to a monopoly as they have on GPU manufacturing.
-MarkM-
Do you realize that the same number of coins will be mined with or without asics?
Supply will remain the same.
Supply will remain the same.
When there is an excess of supply of an artificially cheap product in the marketplace relative to demand, price falls, it's as simple as that. The ASIC vs GPU/CPU issue turns precisely on that very premise.
Admittedly, scrypt ASIC proponents argue that their main justification for ASIC miners is so they can optimize the mining of the most profitable coin at the moment, and then sell it ASAP in order to buy a more established coin like LTC or BTC. I don't think anyone will argue this point: scrypt ASIC exists to mine the "currently most profitable" coins at the lowest cost in order to immediately dump them in favor of the more established coins, or even USD.
What does that do to the less established, "currently most profitable" coin from a supply and demand standpoint? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer that question. Price is obviously negatively affected to the downside. In a word, the fledgling coin is CRUSHED by ASIC, whereas, in the absence of ASIC, the newer coin has an equal chance of gaining acceptance, theoretically even equality of status at some future date, as price rises in correlation to the rise in mining difficulty.
In theory, and in practice, on a level playing field, price rises in correlation to the rise in the difficulty to mine - that is what the concept of scarcity is based on. If all coins were always "easy to mine" (as the ASIC proponents meme "should be the case" goes), they would be worthless. Again, supply and demand, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist.
ASIC also centralizes mining and ownership, the exact opposite of the cryptocurrency ethic. Not only will ASIC eventually crush all the "lesser" coins by keeping their prices artificially low and driving the majority of small, ordinary users to some other alternative, the logic behind ASIC will eventually devour (if allowed) even the more established coins that their devotees covet, as they also centralize control in those coins while driving away the average Joe even from those coins as well. The end result would be a few individuals and organizations holding massive quantities of coins with only each other to sell to (i.e. worthless coins in the long run as well).
The coin that will survive is the coin that stays loyal to the cryptocurrency ethic, honoring the principles of wide user base decentralization and a secure network. It doesn't necessarily matter whether it's n-scrypt, or 6+hash, or something else that will come along later, what matters is the community's commitment to combat anything and everything that doesn't foster a decentralized and secure network that is as broadly based and widely accepted as possible (I don't think anyone would argue with that either.
). If the commitment is there, the necessary changes will always be implemented when needed (using the technology currently available at the time . . . which is always advancing as well).
The cryptocurrency that is true to its design will eventually become more and more difficult to mine. That's life, and that's how they're designed! Price logically follows and rises accordingly given that supply falls as demand rises. That, of course, keeps miners in the game, even when it's to the stage of only "inflationary" coins, and the coin, the network, and users alike (and their savings), stay alive and healthy. ASIC is the alt-coin cancer that destroys all that, the gang of termites that eat the foundation out from underneath the house. That "cancer" can be beaten by simply deciding on, and committing to, who we're serving and how we're going about it, and I think that it all probably neatly starts with the answer we give to the following question: who makes up that widely distributed user base and secure network, what technologies do the majority of those end users have at their disposal, and, when it's all said and done, do we really want to make a cryptocurrency that best serves their interests, or not?
Admittedly, scrypt ASIC proponents argue that their main justification for ASIC miners is so they can optimize the mining of the most profitable coin at the moment, and then sell it ASAP in order to buy a more established coin like LTC or BTC. I don't think anyone will argue this point: scrypt ASIC exists to mine the "currently most profitable" coins at the lowest cost in order to immediately dump them in favor of the more established coins, or even USD.
What does that do to the less established, "currently most profitable" coin from a supply and demand standpoint? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer that question. Price is obviously negatively affected to the downside. In a word, the fledgling coin is CRUSHED by ASIC, whereas, in the absence of ASIC, the newer coin has an equal chance of gaining acceptance, theoretically even equality of status at some future date, as price rises in correlation to the rise in mining difficulty.
In theory, and in practice, on a level playing field, price rises in correlation to the rise in the difficulty to mine - that is what the concept of scarcity is based on. If all coins were always "easy to mine" (as the ASIC proponents meme "should be the case" goes), they would be worthless. Again, supply and demand, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist.
ASIC also centralizes mining and ownership, the exact opposite of the cryptocurrency ethic. Not only will ASIC eventually crush all the "lesser" coins by keeping their prices artificially low and driving the majority of small, ordinary users to some other alternative, the logic behind ASIC will eventually devour (if allowed) even the more established coins that their devotees covet, as they also centralize control in those coins while driving away the average Joe even from those coins as well. The end result would be a few individuals and organizations holding massive quantities of coins with only each other to sell to (i.e. worthless coins in the long run as well).
The coin that will survive is the coin that stays loyal to the cryptocurrency ethic, honoring the principles of wide user base decentralization and a secure network. It doesn't necessarily matter whether it's n-scrypt, or 6+hash, or something else that will come along later, what matters is the community's commitment to combat anything and everything that doesn't foster a decentralized and secure network that is as broadly based and widely accepted as possible (I don't think anyone would argue with that either.
). If the commitment is there, the necessary changes will always be implemented when needed (using the technology currently available at the time . . . which is always advancing as well).The cryptocurrency that is true to its design will eventually become more and more difficult to mine. That's life, and that's how they're designed! Price logically follows and rises accordingly given that supply falls as demand rises. That, of course, keeps miners in the game, even when it's to the stage of only "inflationary" coins, and the coin, the network, and users alike (and their savings), stay alive and healthy. ASIC is the alt-coin cancer that destroys all that, the gang of termites that eat the foundation out from underneath the house. That "cancer" can be beaten by simply deciding on, and committing to, who we're serving and how we're going about it, and I think that it all probably neatly starts with the answer we give to the following question: who makes up that widely distributed user base and secure network, what technologies do the majority of those end users have at their disposal, and, when it's all said and done, do we really want to make a cryptocurrency that best serves their interests, or not?
Jump to: