I have been doing some detective work.
I looked at the mining hash rate on all of the Noble pools and found we currently account for about 50% (32mhash) of the network hash rate. So at this stage it should only take 5000-10,000 more khash to combat the 51% attack.
Also, am I paranoid or do the 2 top wallets on the rich list look suspicious?
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/nobl/address.dws?384427.htm
http://chainz.cryptoid.info/nobl/address.dws?407772.htm
They appear to be new, have been active recently and rocketed to the top of the list in a very short time.
I like conspiracy theories, so what are people opinions on what's going on here? New whales filling their bags? 51% attack mining wallets waiting to be dumped? They could also be mintpal/trading site wallets, but I doubt it.
Topic: NobleCoin[NOBL] - 8% PoS | 1Yr+ | MARKETPLACE | PAY | GIFT | CHARITIES/MERCHANTS - page 267. (Read 1053172 times)
May 29, 2014, 10:49:00 PM
May 29, 2014, 10:45:53 PM
We are going to be releasing some detailed information and plans tomorrow regarding hash, mining & security.
Marketplace
$0 in sales. $1,500 worth of orders until it picks up. Mintpal speculation will still affect when the deal becomes more worthwhile. Upped it to 18%. 100% chance of it being 19% tomorrow.
May 29, 2014, 10:44:20 PM
Most probably a frontend job that needs something on their end to be restarted. Had a few guys still waiting to follow up on it.
May 29, 2014, 10:16:52 PM
why Poolerino is still not paying out anything. Should we continue to mine?
May 29, 2014, 09:01:18 PM
Because we need to stop blaming ASICs when we can't even prove it is ASICs, there are hundreds (thousands) of GPU setups that can right now do what is happening.
PoS is less secure because doublespend attacks can be repeated and are easier & cheaper (relative to our current value) to continue doing so were someone inclined to act maliciously towards us. This marketed belief that PoS is secure and safe from double-spend attacks is ridiculously misleading. Especially because the majority of these PoS coins don't even use centralized check-pointing, a method considered by many mandatory to ensure the security of PoS at this point in time.
Mining is a means to create coins and secure the network, it was never meant to be focused purely on profit. We need to head towards and build a system where people don't mine NOBL to cash out and profit in fiat, they mine it because they support the coin and will be holding or using it to trade/buy anything they need from within our own cryptoeconomy. They don't even need to sell or exchange it, the NOBL they mine lets them do almost anything fiat would have. Crypto isn't about just restricting supply to newcomers so we can profit greater ourselves. It's also about putting the power to create money fairly in the hands of anyone, regardless of when they enter a coin.
Early PoS distribution over a week to 6 months has and will always be highly criticised the older a coin gets, as new 'investors' and individuals arriving will become less and less inclined to buy in to something that benefits only those who got in very early. Distribution criticism will be the fall of the majority of these PoS coins, if nothing else comes beforehand.
Again I'll repeat, it doesn't matter if it is ASICs or GPUs. ASICs don't cause the centralization, money does. Scrypt is just as centralized now as it is with GPU farms, the money is just in technology that is less efficient (GPUs), use more electricity, are hotter, and cost more to run, than ASICs. I want ASICs to render GPUs useless, take that how you will. GPU miners have been able to mine us for 6-8 months. ASICs are overall cheaper (relative to hash, we can't just keep using a $10,000 example), more efficient, cleaner, cooler, quieter, and more reliable. They'll get cheaper and more efficient as more manufacturing players pop up, competition heatens up and technology progresses.
The second people become unhappy with the centralization of mining power of a coin, which is inevitable either way with GPUs or ASICs, they will move to a new coin. In the process, that coin will end up getting more 'centralized' and the one they left will decentralize, causing them to move back or to a new one again. Rinse, repeat.
In order to attract users and 'investors', we need infrastructure, a fair distribution schedule, remain as free from price/supply/fork manipulation criticism as possible, branding and outreach, and we need to allow more efficient hardware to secure our coin and make it more trusted. In 5 years the majority of people won't even necessarily be miners, they won't care how it's done, but their use of the crypto. is what will support the miners from today. We need to provide a crypto. as free from criticism, 'shady' profit-driven forks (and I in no way mean that to apply to forking for miners), and unfair distribution accusations, among other things, as possible.
PoS is less secure because doublespend attacks can be repeated and are easier & cheaper (relative to our current value) to continue doing so were someone inclined to act maliciously towards us. This marketed belief that PoS is secure and safe from double-spend attacks is ridiculously misleading. Especially because the majority of these PoS coins don't even use centralized check-pointing, a method considered by many mandatory to ensure the security of PoS at this point in time.
Mining is a means to create coins and secure the network, it was never meant to be focused purely on profit. We need to head towards and build a system where people don't mine NOBL to cash out and profit in fiat, they mine it because they support the coin and will be holding or using it to trade/buy anything they need from within our own cryptoeconomy. They don't even need to sell or exchange it, the NOBL they mine lets them do almost anything fiat would have. Crypto isn't about just restricting supply to newcomers so we can profit greater ourselves. It's also about putting the power to create money fairly in the hands of anyone, regardless of when they enter a coin.
Early PoS distribution over a week to 6 months has and will always be highly criticised the older a coin gets, as new 'investors' and individuals arriving will become less and less inclined to buy in to something that benefits only those who got in very early. Distribution criticism will be the fall of the majority of these PoS coins, if nothing else comes beforehand.
Again I'll repeat, it doesn't matter if it is ASICs or GPUs. ASICs don't cause the centralization, money does. Scrypt is just as centralized now as it is with GPU farms, the money is just in technology that is less efficient (GPUs), use more electricity, are hotter, and cost more to run, than ASICs. I want ASICs to render GPUs useless, take that how you will. GPU miners have been able to mine us for 6-8 months. ASICs are overall cheaper (relative to hash, we can't just keep using a $10,000 example), more efficient, cleaner, cooler, quieter, and more reliable. They'll get cheaper and more efficient as more manufacturing players pop up, competition heatens up and technology progresses.
The second people become unhappy with the centralization of mining power of a coin, which is inevitable either way with GPUs or ASICs, they will move to a new coin. In the process, that coin will end up getting more 'centralized' and the one they left will decentralize, causing them to move back or to a new one again. Rinse, repeat.
In order to attract users and 'investors', we need infrastructure, a fair distribution schedule, remain as free from price/supply/fork manipulation criticism as possible, branding and outreach, and we need to allow more efficient hardware to secure our coin and make it more trusted. In 5 years the majority of people won't even necessarily be miners, they won't care how it's done, but their use of the crypto. is what will support the miners from today. We need to provide a crypto. as free from criticism, 'shady' profit-driven forks (and I in no way mean that to apply to forking for miners), and unfair distribution accusations, among other things, as possible.
This.
If you wish to show your support for a coin, active assistance whether in tech work, monetary support, or mining assistance is much appreciated. All suggestions have merit and substance, but active assistance is the next step to really helping a coin and creating a solid base of support.
May 29, 2014, 08:16:37 PM
Cheers, I'm sure others have different answers and perspectives on that. But I think 'centralization risk buffer' is a good phrase. Money will always centralize it, which is what I think is happening with BTC. When we start looking at this in terms of 'cryptocurrency' (or altcoins) rather than just BTC, what mining gear gives everyone is the decentralization of money creation, system/economic control, however you want to term it. It decentralizes the power, so that huge hash farms that 'control'/mine coins have to adhere to the ideals of others in some form or another, else members of that particular system will simply move away and create/support a different coin.. which is happening over and over. I think this will become less and less fiat profit driven with time, as infrastructure for all crytpocurrency crops up and slowly removes the need to even cash out of particular coins.
May 29, 2014, 08:04:00 PM
Hello,
thanks for the answer. In the bigger cryptocurrency vision, it now makes sense to me how GPUs/ASICs/etc. have an important value, as a "centralization risk buffer" (couldn't think of a better expression).
Thanks for the enlightenment! I always look forward to read your posts (and the "The State of the Alt Cryptocurrency" document)!
I'll keep lurking here and also supporting as I can, by mining, buying and using the Marketplace =)
Janito
thanks for the answer. In the bigger cryptocurrency vision, it now makes sense to me how GPUs/ASICs/etc. have an important value, as a "centralization risk buffer" (couldn't think of a better expression).
Thanks for the enlightenment! I always look forward to read your posts (and the "The State of the Alt Cryptocurrency" document)!
I'll keep lurking here and also supporting as I can, by mining, buying and using the Marketplace =)
Janito
May 29, 2014, 07:51:27 PM
- on the other side, by buying GPUs/ASICs/etc. they buy something that is totally unrelated to the coin, they can do evil to as many coins as they want.
The thing is people can also buy it to do good and give themselves 'power'. If you buy a PoS coin, you're restricted to that PoS coin. If you buy mining power, you have the power to support, build, create and mine/secure a coin of your choosing. The fluctuations in coin value and their short lifespans means you're generally better off using your money vote on mining gear rather than an individual coin. The ideals I prattle on about require lots of coins and lots of freedom to support the coin you choose. If NOBL becomes too decentralized, too corrupt or you don't support the direction it's going (as many may not) then you can point your mining power elsewhere to support/mine a coin you want. Right now of course practicality drives that decision more often than not. Which means we also need to appeal to non-miners, to keep miners with us. There are many variables at play.
Quote
- on one side, by buying a PoS coin, they (evil dudes) actually raise the value and they would probably not want to lose value when they decide to dump (although I know there may be very malicious people willing to suffer loses in order to do evil).
Also one thing to factor in here is the 'evil dudes' can more easily artificially raise the value themselves since there is no new supply coming in. They also may have gotten in at 0.5%-1% of the current price, so they'll let the value climb as high as they like/feel they can handle until it's time to dump.
May 29, 2014, 07:09:51 PM
Because we need to stop blaming ASICs when we can't even prove it is ASICs, there are hundreds (thousands) of GPU setups that can right now do what is happening.
PoS is less secure because doublespend attacks can be repeated and are easier & cheaper (relative to our current value) to continue doing so were someone inclined to act maliciously towards us. This marketed belief that PoS is secure and safe from double-spend attacks is ridiculously misleading. Especially because the majority of these PoS coins don't even use centralized check-pointing, a method considered by many mandatory to ensure the security of PoS at this point in time.
Mining is a means to create coins and secure the network, it was never meant to be focused purely on profit. We need to head towards and build a system where people don't mine NOBL to cash out and profit in fiat, they mine it because they support the coin and will be holding or using it to trade/buy anything they need from within our own cryptoeconomy. They don't even need to sell or exchange it, the NOBL they mine lets them do almost anything fiat would have. Crypto isn't about just restricting supply to newcomers so we can profit greater ourselves. It's also about putting the power to create money fairly in the hands of anyone, regardless of when they enter a coin.
Early PoS distribution over a week to 6 months has and will always be highly criticised the older a coin gets, as new 'investors' and individuals arriving will become less and less inclined to buy in to something that benefits only those who got in very early. Distribution criticism will be the fall of the majority of these PoS coins, if nothing else comes beforehand.
Again I'll repeat, it doesn't matter if it is ASICs or GPUs. ASICs don't cause the centralization, money does. Scrypt is just as centralized now as it is with GPU farms, the money is just in technology that is less efficient (GPUs), use more electricity, are hotter, and cost more to run, than ASICs. I want ASICs to render GPUs useless, take that how you will. GPU miners have been able to mine us for 6-8 months. ASICs are overall cheaper (relative to hash, we can't just keep using a $10,000 example), more efficient, cleaner, cooler, quieter, and more reliable. They'll get cheaper and more efficient as more manufacturing players pop up, competition heatens up and technology progresses.
The second people become unhappy with the centralization of mining power of a coin, which is inevitable either way with GPUs or ASICs, they will move to a new coin. In the process, that coin will end up getting more 'centralized' and the one they left will decentralize, causing them to move back or to a new one again. Rinse, repeat.
In order to attract users and 'investors', we need infrastructure, a fair distribution schedule, remain as free from price/supply/fork manipulation criticism as possible, branding and outreach, and we need to allow more efficient hardware to secure our coin and make it more trusted. In 5 years the majority of people won't even necessarily be miners, they won't care how it's done, but their use of the crypto. is what will support the miners from today. We need to provide a crypto. as free from criticism, 'shady' profit-driven forks (and I in no way mean that to apply to forking for miners), and unfair distribution accusations, among other things, as possible.
PoS is less secure because doublespend attacks can be repeated and are easier & cheaper (relative to our current value) to continue doing so were someone inclined to act maliciously towards us. This marketed belief that PoS is secure and safe from double-spend attacks is ridiculously misleading. Especially because the majority of these PoS coins don't even use centralized check-pointing, a method considered by many mandatory to ensure the security of PoS at this point in time.
Mining is a means to create coins and secure the network, it was never meant to be focused purely on profit. We need to head towards and build a system where people don't mine NOBL to cash out and profit in fiat, they mine it because they support the coin and will be holding or using it to trade/buy anything they need from within our own cryptoeconomy. They don't even need to sell or exchange it, the NOBL they mine lets them do almost anything fiat would have. Crypto isn't about just restricting supply to newcomers so we can profit greater ourselves. It's also about putting the power to create money fairly in the hands of anyone, regardless of when they enter a coin.
Early PoS distribution over a week to 6 months has and will always be highly criticised the older a coin gets, as new 'investors' and individuals arriving will become less and less inclined to buy in to something that benefits only those who got in very early. Distribution criticism will be the fall of the majority of these PoS coins, if nothing else comes beforehand.
Again I'll repeat, it doesn't matter if it is ASICs or GPUs. ASICs don't cause the centralization, money does. Scrypt is just as centralized now as it is with GPU farms, the money is just in technology that is less efficient (GPUs), use more electricity, are hotter, and cost more to run, than ASICs. I want ASICs to render GPUs useless, take that how you will. GPU miners have been able to mine us for 6-8 months. ASICs are overall cheaper (relative to hash, we can't just keep using a $10,000 example), more efficient, cleaner, cooler, quieter, and more reliable. They'll get cheaper and more efficient as more manufacturing players pop up, competition heatens up and technology progresses.
The second people become unhappy with the centralization of mining power of a coin, which is inevitable either way with GPUs or ASICs, they will move to a new coin. In the process, that coin will end up getting more 'centralized' and the one they left will decentralize, causing them to move back or to a new one again. Rinse, repeat.
In order to attract users and 'investors', we need infrastructure, a fair distribution schedule, remain as free from price/supply/fork manipulation criticism as possible, branding and outreach, and we need to allow more efficient hardware to secure our coin and make it more trusted. In 5 years the majority of people won't even necessarily be miners, they won't care how it's done, but their use of the crypto. is what will support the miners from today. We need to provide a crypto. as free from criticism, 'shady' profit-driven forks (and I in no way mean that to apply to forking for miners), and unfair distribution accusations, among other things, as possible.
Has it.
May 29, 2014, 07:03:02 PM
Hello,
noob here, but I would like to add my quick .02 cents.
If it ever reaches the decision point of what's safer, PoS or more hash, I think it's important to emphasize the following point:
- on one side, by buying a PoS coin, they (evil dudes) actually raise the value and they would probably not want to lose value when they decide to dump (although I know there may be very malicious people willing to suffer loses in order to do evil).
- on the other side, by buying GPUs/ASICs/etc. they buy something that is totally unrelated to the coin, they can do evil to as many coins as they want.
If this line of thought is incorrect, please enlighten me. I'm having a lot of fun learning about CryptoCurrency =)
Just wanted to bring this forward while discussion is early.
Thank you,
Janito
noob here, but I would like to add my quick .02 cents.
If it ever reaches the decision point of what's safer, PoS or more hash, I think it's important to emphasize the following point:
- on one side, by buying a PoS coin, they (evil dudes) actually raise the value and they would probably not want to lose value when they decide to dump (although I know there may be very malicious people willing to suffer loses in order to do evil).
- on the other side, by buying GPUs/ASICs/etc. they buy something that is totally unrelated to the coin, they can do evil to as many coins as they want.
If this line of thought is incorrect, please enlighten me. I'm having a lot of fun learning about CryptoCurrency =)
Just wanted to bring this forward while discussion is early.
Thank you,
Janito
May 29, 2014, 06:33:34 PM
Because we need to stop blaming ASICs when we can't even prove it is ASICs, there are hundreds (thousands) of GPU setups that can right now do what is happening.
PoS is less secure because doublespend attacks can be repeated and are easier & cheaper (relative to our current value) to continue doing so were someone inclined to act maliciously towards us. This marketed belief that PoS is secure and safe from double-spend attacks is ridiculously misleading. Especially because the majority of these PoS coins don't even use centralized check-pointing, a method considered by many mandatory to ensure the security of PoS at this point in time.
Mining is a means to create coins and secure the network, it was never meant to be focused purely on profit. We need to head towards and build a system where people don't mine NOBL to cash out and profit in fiat, they mine it because they support the coin and will be holding or using it to trade/buy anything they need from within our own cryptoeconomy. They don't even need to sell or exchange it, the NOBL they mine lets them do almost anything fiat would have. Crypto isn't about just restricting supply to newcomers so we can profit greater ourselves. It's also about putting the power to create money fairly in the hands of anyone, regardless of when they enter a coin.
Early PoS distribution over a week to 6 months has and will always be highly criticised the older a coin gets, as new 'investors' and individuals arriving will become less and less inclined to buy in to something that benefits only those who got in very early. Distribution criticism will be the fall of the majority of these PoS coins, if nothing else comes beforehand.
Again I'll repeat, it doesn't matter if it is ASICs or GPUs. ASICs don't cause the centralization, money does. Scrypt is just as centralized now as it is with GPU farms, the money is just in technology that is less efficient (GPUs), use more electricity, are hotter, and cost more to run, than ASICs. I want ASICs to render GPUs useless, take that how you will. GPU miners have been able to mine us for 6-8 months. ASICs are overall cheaper (relative to hash, we can't just keep using a $10,000 example), more efficient, cleaner, cooler, quieter, and more reliable. They'll get cheaper and more efficient as more manufacturing players pop up, competition heatens up and technology progresses.
The second people become unhappy with the centralization of mining power of a coin, which is inevitable either way with GPUs or ASICs, they will move to a new coin. In the process, that coin will end up getting more 'centralized' and the one they left will decentralize, causing them to move back or to a new one again. Rinse, repeat.
In order to attract users and 'investors', we need infrastructure, a fair distribution schedule, remain as free from price/supply/fork manipulation criticism as possible, branding and outreach, and we need to allow more efficient hardware to secure our coin and make it more trusted. In 5 years the majority of people won't even necessarily be miners, they won't care how it's done, but their use of the crypto. is what will support the miners from today. We need to provide a crypto. as free from criticism, 'shady' profit-driven forks (and I in no way mean that to apply to forking for miners), and unfair distribution accusations, among other things, as possible.
PoS is less secure because doublespend attacks can be repeated and are easier & cheaper (relative to our current value) to continue doing so were someone inclined to act maliciously towards us. This marketed belief that PoS is secure and safe from double-spend attacks is ridiculously misleading. Especially because the majority of these PoS coins don't even use centralized check-pointing, a method considered by many mandatory to ensure the security of PoS at this point in time.
Mining is a means to create coins and secure the network, it was never meant to be focused purely on profit. We need to head towards and build a system where people don't mine NOBL to cash out and profit in fiat, they mine it because they support the coin and will be holding or using it to trade/buy anything they need from within our own cryptoeconomy. They don't even need to sell or exchange it, the NOBL they mine lets them do almost anything fiat would have. Crypto isn't about just restricting supply to newcomers so we can profit greater ourselves. It's also about putting the power to create money fairly in the hands of anyone, regardless of when they enter a coin.
Early PoS distribution over a week to 6 months has and will always be highly criticised the older a coin gets, as new 'investors' and individuals arriving will become less and less inclined to buy in to something that benefits only those who got in very early. Distribution criticism will be the fall of the majority of these PoS coins, if nothing else comes beforehand.
Again I'll repeat, it doesn't matter if it is ASICs or GPUs. ASICs don't cause the centralization, money does. Scrypt is just as centralized now as it is with GPU farms, the money is just in technology that is less efficient (GPUs), use more electricity, are hotter, and cost more to run, than ASICs. I want ASICs to render GPUs useless, take that how you will. GPU miners have been able to mine us for 6-8 months. ASICs are overall cheaper (relative to hash, we can't just keep using a $10,000 example), more efficient, cleaner, cooler, quieter, and more reliable. They'll get cheaper and more efficient as more manufacturing players pop up, competition heatens up and technology progresses.
The second people become unhappy with the centralization of mining power of a coin, which is inevitable either way with GPUs or ASICs, they will move to a new coin. In the process, that coin will end up getting more 'centralized' and the one they left will decentralize, causing them to move back or to a new one again. Rinse, repeat.
In order to attract users and 'investors', we need infrastructure, a fair distribution schedule, remain as free from price/supply/fork manipulation criticism as possible, branding and outreach, and we need to allow more efficient hardware to secure our coin and make it more trusted. In 5 years the majority of people won't even necessarily be miners, they won't care how it's done, but their use of the crypto. is what will support the miners from today. We need to provide a crypto. as free from criticism, 'shady' profit-driven forks (and I in no way mean that to apply to forking for miners), and unfair distribution accusations, among other things, as possible.
May 29, 2014, 06:01:07 PM
Rofo I understand your points but I have to ask
You say with PoS you don't agree with it because it allows hoarders and early adopters to get more rich whilst late adopters struggle to get in on the coin unless they buy
Just how is this going to be any different than when Asics render all our GPU's useless and turn Noble in terms of mining into what Bitcoin is now where mining is worthless unless you have a farm and the only way to get into it is to buy it ?
It's basically the same resultsjust 2 different methods AND the Asic approach leaves us more vulnerable to 51% attack which is exactly what is happening now. No matter whether you use PoS or keep embracing Asic's sooner or later it's going to be impossible to get into Noble unless you own an Asic farm or you buy it off an exchange so to use that as an excuse not to embrace a technology which offers far greater protection and less reliability on these farms confirming transactions and imo better fairness for all just seems beyond me
I really don't understand your willingness to embrace Asic technology, really I don't when it has more negatives than positives and someone somewhere is currently running 51% attacks on the coin and damaging the coins image
You say with PoS you don't agree with it because it allows hoarders and early adopters to get more rich whilst late adopters struggle to get in on the coin unless they buy
Just how is this going to be any different than when Asics render all our GPU's useless and turn Noble in terms of mining into what Bitcoin is now where mining is worthless unless you have a farm and the only way to get into it is to buy it ?
It's basically the same resultsjust 2 different methods AND the Asic approach leaves us more vulnerable to 51% attack which is exactly what is happening now. No matter whether you use PoS or keep embracing Asic's sooner or later it's going to be impossible to get into Noble unless you own an Asic farm or you buy it off an exchange so to use that as an excuse not to embrace a technology which offers far greater protection and less reliability on these farms confirming transactions and imo better fairness for all just seems beyond me
I really don't understand your willingness to embrace Asic technology, really I don't when it has more negatives than positives and someone somewhere is currently running 51% attacks on the coin and damaging the coins image
May 29, 2014, 05:36:17 PM
we need an algo with a high Mem prerequisite.
That's just filling holes in a broken dam with leaves & mud
It's a cat & mouse game with these algo's and asics being developed to use the new algo's, no matter what mining algo you pick eventually an Asic (or something far worse in the future) will come along and crush everything in its path
This is why I'm all for moving away from traditional mining and over to something like PoS, now I'm not saying we adopt PoS but we need a system which stops miners from mining and gaining 51% which is why I'm all for a revolutionary PoS type hybrid system with hard coded limits on the amount of staking within the system perhaps an intelligent system which fluctuates the limits based on the amounts being stake so no single wallet can have 51% control
Has anyone tried to limit, in a similar way, the possible network mining power from a single miner?
Say, to hardcode the condition, that no single miner can exceed some % of the total network?
In such a way that increasing MH/s above that threshold (for example 30%) would do exactly nothing (via increasing the diff maybe for that single entity)?
May 29, 2014, 05:34:51 PM
I won't deny a progression to ASIC mining for Scrypt will be a rocky road, with unknown fluctuations in price and hash. The thing is we can not even be sure it is an ASIC(s) at this point with the GPU power & farms out there, and sooner or later every algorithm will need to survive an ASIC switch if it became 'lager/widely used' or constantly fork (not necessarily desirable) in a cat and mouse game of fleeing from them. By the time ASICs arrive big time, we will have had between 7-9 months at least of GPU mining and distribution at a larger coin reward. Making a transition in the next few months when our value has already been hit (for various reasons depending on your belief) is the perfect time, because we're not as big a target and we can survive rough transitions without an epic collapse. We are definitely considering our options and actively working on stuff behind the scenes, but we wanted to let ASICs come and survive the change.
Please read http://www.noblemovement.com/downloads/TheStateofAlternativeCryptocurrency-D1.pdf: 3.7 & 3.8 where we outlined our position with ASICs. If our approach is not your cup of tea, hold, don't buy, sell, or wait for us to release a partner PoS coin (I mean that in no offence).
Please read http://www.noblemovement.com/downloads/TheStateofAlternativeCryptocurrency-D1.pdf: 3.7 & 3.8 where we outlined our position with ASICs. If our approach is not your cup of tea, hold, don't buy, sell, or wait for us to release a partner PoS coin (I mean that in no offence).
May 29, 2014, 05:28:37 PM
we need an algo with a high Mem prerequisite.
That's just filling holes in a broken dam with leaves & mud
It's a cat & mouse game with these algo's and asics being developed to use the new algo's, no matter what mining algo you pick eventually an Asic (or something far worse in the future) will come along and crush everything in its path
This is why I'm all for moving away from traditional mining and over to something like PoS, now I'm not saying we adopt PoS but we need a system which stops miners from mining and gaining 51% which is why I'm all for a revolutionary PoS type hybrid system with hard coded limits on the amount of staking within the system perhaps an intelligent system which fluctuates the limits based on the amounts being stake so no single wallet can have 51% control
May 29, 2014, 05:15:43 PM
I know I sounds like a broken record.ASIC is fucking us,
I agree they are, but only because they are being controlled by scum!
I am mining Noble with 14Mhash (I know it's not enough), but have more asic hardware arriving early next month. I won't say exactly how much hash power I will have, but lets just say it should enough to slam the 51% attackers as long as my fellow miners keep their rigs mining too.
I never sell Noble and will do everything I can to support the network, just like I have since day 1.
IMO the fact that someone wants us dead, shows that some see us a genuine threat. If we are a threat but don't fold under the pressure, that puts us one step closer to guaranteed success!
Dig deep guys (pun intended). Rofo, has gone above and beyond to make things happen. Give what you can in return and mine the hell out of Noble!
May 29, 2014, 04:56:32 PM
Not quite. Someone builds a separate private chain with enough hashpower to ensure it will ultimately be longer than our current public one. They send a transaction from our current chain to an exchange, dump it and withdraw the BTC. Once it's all said and done they unload their longer, private chain onto the network which doesn't have the original deposit so it's as if it never happened and they keep their NOBL. They've already received their BTC, so by that time it's too late to protect the exchange. All the orphans are a result of our current public chain being overwritten by the privately built one when it's unloaded on to the network.
I know I sounds like a broken record.ASIC is fucking us,
Will they stop just like that?
As long as it's profitable, I doubt it.
Should we hope about exchanges security measures?
May 29, 2014, 04:48:49 PM
Edit2: Also, a quick calculation: my old rig 670 kH/s (1x7950) I can sell for $500 or even more (bought for $700).
It's a fully functional gaming desktop with decent graphics. Let me just find some old HDD... now running from USB stick.
May 29, 2014, 04:42:13 PM
Edit2: Also, a quick calculation: my old rig 670 kH/s (1x7950) I can sell for $500 or even more (bought for $700).
It's a fully functional gaming desktop with decent graphics. Let me just find some old HDD... now running from USB stick. 
May 29, 2014, 04:30:49 PM
Not quite. Someone builds a separate private chain with enough hashpower to ensure it will ultimately be longer than our current public one. They send a transaction from our current chain to an exchange, dump it and withdraw the BTC. Once it's all said and done they unload their longer, private chain onto the network which doesn't have the original deposit so it's as if it never happened and they keep their NOBL. They've already received their BTC, so by that time it's too late to protect the exchange. All the orphans are a result of our current public chain being overwritten by the privately built one when it's unloaded on to the network.
I know I sounds like a broken record.ASIC is fucking us,
This is technology.
Technology evolves...rapidly
Crypto will continue to evolve....rapidly
Just like in business, Cryptos that embrace this change will survive and grow.
Technology evolves...rapidly
Crypto will continue to evolve....rapidly
Just like in business, Cryptos that embrace this change will survive and grow.
I'm not going to flame, but why can't this rapidly evolving technology that needs to be embraced apply to ASICs?
Because it is far too cheap to acquire massive hash with them.
I'll give you one guess where the hash is coming from to create the longer chain?
AFA X11 FPGA is most certainly either here or will be soon.
we need an algo with a high Mem prerequisite.
On the bright side just got back and won at casino.
Jump to: