I would rather see an algorithm that gpu miners can still mine with.
If it's an algorithm that benefits cpu miners, I can't see all the current GPU scrypt miners supporting it.
Why not make the algorithm a version of scrypt that uses more memory.
Topic: [POLL] Would you support a Litecoin [LTC] to X11 algorithm hardfork? - page 7. (Read 12783 times)
March 30, 2014, 07:11:26 PM
March 30, 2014, 07:09:19 PM
I'd like to kill thoes scrypt ASIC vendor.
Why? It makes no sense. The coins you have mined should go up in value as the blockchain becomes more secure.
So you should be happy that all the worthwhile scrypt coins can all become massively secure if you have been mining worthwhile scrypt coins.
The security of the blockchain is measured in the dollar cost to protect it not the network hashrate.
The arrival of ascis for scrypt doesn't necessarily make the the blockchain more secure. A malicious entity can now spend his dollars buying asics for an attack rather than buying gpus for an attack. If anything asics could temporarily weaken the blockchain if the first asic provider to hit big numbers sold a lot of them to a single entity. Hypothetical though and not important. What is important is the dollar cost concept.
March 30, 2014, 06:45:40 PM
I look at the poll results and my first instinct is to be surprised, but then I think about it and realize, no it isn't.
Frankly, we're still only looking at a fringe amount of people or people who haven't invested much into Litecoin. A lot of the more serious people on Litecoin aren't necessarily on this sub-forum. Even if there is a "majority" here, it doesn't mean the infrastructure that surrounds Litecoin is going to follow.
Frankly, we're still only looking at a fringe amount of people or people who haven't invested much into Litecoin. A lot of the more serious people on Litecoin aren't necessarily on this sub-forum. Even if there is a "majority" here, it doesn't mean the infrastructure that surrounds Litecoin is going to follow.
March 30, 2014, 05:59:15 PM
I prefer an alternative similar to X11 but more advanced..
With mining limitations, anti botnet with captcha and geolocation check, anti multipool..
With mining limitations, anti botnet with captcha and geolocation check, anti multipool..
March 30, 2014, 05:20:56 PM
I would support it because X11 results in less heat being produced during mining. Summer is on the way and cooling is a problem when it gets really hot. We might be in for a real scorcher this year like the year the tar started melting on the roads because it was so hot.
Same with scrypt-jane. But that's just a sign of a not very optimized miner imo.Bitcoin mining (SHA256) is running cooler on a GPU than scrypt too, and that has been optimized for years now.
It's too easy to say "it's not optimized" when a algorithm uses less energy on a GPU.
I believe there is enough room to tweak the code for X11 mining but don't expect more than 5% improvement.
March 30, 2014, 05:18:08 PM
We could use blake256, nice contender there. Once you really look at it, finding the hardest algo isn't worth while. Blake256 runs 3x faster on gpu, but x11 energy and heat savings can't be beat xD. Think it would be good either x11 or blake256
March 30, 2014, 05:15:49 PM
I would support it because X11 results in less heat being produced during mining. Summer is on the way and cooling is a problem when it gets really hot. We might be in for a real scorcher this year like the year the tar started melting on the roads because it was so hot.
Same with scrypt-jane. But that's just a sign of a not very optimized miner imo. March 30, 2014, 05:08:05 PM
I would support it because X11 results in less heat being produced during mining. Summer is on the way and cooling is a problem when it gets really hot. We might be in for a real scorcher this year like the year the tar started melting on the roads because it was so hot.
March 30, 2014, 05:02:40 PM
Why X11 and not e.g. scrypt-jane or scrypt-N?
Also I'd like to point out that imo Litecoin is not that great, it's launch was highly misleading and it's rather likely the devs and/or a group of miners had a GPU miner from the beginning.
(yada yada GPU/ASIC resistant, but don't tell anybody we consciously chose ridiculously low memory requirements [way lower than default scrypt] making GPU and ASIC easily possible)
Also I'd like to point out that imo Litecoin is not that great, it's launch was highly misleading and it's rather likely the devs and/or a group of miners had a GPU miner from the beginning.
(yada yada GPU/ASIC resistant, but don't tell anybody we consciously chose ridiculously low memory requirements [way lower than default scrypt] making GPU and ASIC easily possible)
March 30, 2014, 04:59:18 PM
so many ppl supporting this.the result shows us what need to be done
It looks promising.
I think we need to launch a poll on the Litecointalk.org forum too.
March 30, 2014, 04:10:46 PM
+1
March 30, 2014, 04:09:15 PM
Very nice!
March 30, 2014, 02:53:12 PM
GO!
March 30, 2014, 02:44:42 PM
so many ppl supporting this.the result shows us what need to be done
March 30, 2014, 02:20:18 PM
Yesterday you said tomorrow.
JUST DO IT!
JUST DO IT!
March 30, 2014, 01:58:53 PM
asic is only going to help LTC.. not sure why you'd want to hurt the coin by changing up the algo
March 30, 2014, 01:41:08 PM
Just leave it alone. Do not touch perfection.
+10000000
March 30, 2014, 12:25:23 PM
make your own fucking algo dipshit, stop copying other coins!
Hahahahahahahahahaha
March 30, 2014, 12:18:18 PM
I won't change client and won't support the hardfork. I don't want LTC to be ASIC resistant. LTC needs more hashpower to protect itself.
+1000
March 30, 2014, 12:15:57 PM
Just leave it alone. Do not touch perfection.
Jump to: