Topic: Switching Einsteinium Algo! (Read 5106 times)
When the decision will be made?
x11 and SHA3 are not ASIC-secure algorithms.
They are secure enough for the next year. I am starting to hate scrypt/nscrypt/scryptchacha because of the noise and heat.
x11 and SHA3 are not ASIC-secure algorithms.
i would not be concerned with 'that'
let's see if it arrives on time or if ever
also how many people are going to shell out that kind of investment even if it actually exists (which I doubt until I see them in circulation)
if they do they will be mining litecoin , maybe feathercoin
i know nothing about this company but unless they have years of experience in building custom chips and tens of millions of dollars invested in development of application specific integrated circuits they are not going to pull it off
fpga boards are normally prototypes for asic's
here is a post on github of some work done on scrypt 1024 with fpga
https://github.com/kramble/FPGA-Litecoin-Miner
read the bottom and the hash rates he is getting
also note the heat problems
read this pdf by Colin Percival for more technical information on how scrypt 1024 works
https://www.tarsnap.com/scrypt/scrypt.pdf
this? https://www.kncminer.com/categories/litecoin-mining-hardware
let's see if it arrives on time or if ever
also how many people are going to shell out that kind of investment even if it actually exists (which I doubt until I see them in circulation)
if they do they will be mining litecoin , maybe feathercoin
i know nothing about this company but unless they have years of experience in building custom chips and tens of millions of dollars invested in development of application specific integrated circuits they are not going to pull it off
fpga boards are normally prototypes for asic's
here is a post on github of some work done on scrypt 1024 with fpga
https://github.com/kramble/FPGA-Litecoin-Miner
read the bottom and the hash rates he is getting
also note the heat problems
read this pdf by Colin Percival for more technical information on how scrypt 1024 works
https://www.tarsnap.com/scrypt/scrypt.pdf
what is the main purpose the development team is considering switching the algo ?
this? https://www.kncminer.com/categories/litecoin-mining-hardware
what is the main purpose the development team is considering switching the algo ?
this? https://www.kncminer.com/categories/litecoin-mining-hardware
what is the main purpose the development team is considering switching the algo ?
So you would agree switching to X11 is a good choice and move?
Blake 256 is a strong choice for speed but if your concern is to avoid fpga or asic mining blake 256
is mined now on fpga & although they do not exist (to my knowledge) asic for blake 256 would not be as expensive as scrypt 1024.
If your goal is to switch the coins algorithm to something else after the coin has had some success and that goal is driven by 'fear' of asic technology consider a few things.
1) Any algorithm can be mined with custom hardware that is designed to mine it.
2) The cost of the development of this hardware is the barrier.
3) It costs millions of dollars to design , develop & build asic technology.
I doubt that scrypt 1024 asic technology will be available for a while since the costs of development are so high
you would need to see the price of litecoin close to or above the current price of bitcoin.
I am not an engineer but I have read many things written on this subject by qualified people.
The speed/efficiency of a prototype circuit on an fpga board is a good baseline for what you would expect from asic technology.
If I were running the coin I would not switch the algorithm out of 'fear' of new technology design.
That being said the design of Memory Coin 2 is the 'most' asic resistant I am aware of at this time.
is mined now on fpga & although they do not exist (to my knowledge) asic for blake 256 would not be as expensive as scrypt 1024.
If your goal is to switch the coins algorithm to something else after the coin has had some success and that goal is driven by 'fear' of asic technology consider a few things.
1) Any algorithm can be mined with custom hardware that is designed to mine it.
2) The cost of the development of this hardware is the barrier.
3) It costs millions of dollars to design , develop & build asic technology.
I doubt that scrypt 1024 asic technology will be available for a while since the costs of development are so high
you would need to see the price of litecoin close to or above the current price of bitcoin.
I am not an engineer but I have read many things written on this subject by qualified people.
The speed/efficiency of a prototype circuit on an fpga board is a good baseline for what you would expect from asic technology.
If I were running the coin I would not switch the algorithm out of 'fear' of new technology design.
That being said the design of Memory Coin 2 is the 'most' asic resistant I am aware of at this time.
So you would agree switching to X11 is a good choice and move?
Who can tell us about the characteristics of these algorithms, those suitable CPU, those suitable GPU, or others. And compare the performance of similar ranking algorithm
Blake 256 is a strong choice for speed but if your concern is to avoid fpga or asic mining blake 256
is mined now on fpga & although they do not exist (to my knowledge) asic for blake 256 would not be as expensive as scrypt 1024.
If your goal is to switch the coins algorithm to something else after the coin has had some success and that goal is driven by 'fear' of asic technology consider a few things.
1) Any algorithm can be mined with custom hardware that is designed to mine it.
2) The cost of the development of this hardware is the barrier.
3) It costs millions of dollars to design , develop & build asic technology.
I doubt that scrypt 1024 asic technology will be available for a while since the costs of development are so high
you would need to see the price of litecoin close to or above the current price of bitcoin.
I am not an engineer but I have read many things written on this subject by qualified people.
The speed/efficiency of a prototype circuit on an fpga board is a good baseline for what you would expect from asic technology.
If I were running the coin I would not switch the algorithm out of 'fear' of new technology design.
That being said the design of Memory Coin 2 is the 'most' asic resistant I am aware of at this time.
is mined now on fpga & although they do not exist (to my knowledge) asic for blake 256 would not be as expensive as scrypt 1024.
If your goal is to switch the coins algorithm to something else after the coin has had some success and that goal is driven by 'fear' of asic technology consider a few things.
1) Any algorithm can be mined with custom hardware that is designed to mine it.
2) The cost of the development of this hardware is the barrier.
3) It costs millions of dollars to design , develop & build asic technology.
I doubt that scrypt 1024 asic technology will be available for a while since the costs of development are so high
you would need to see the price of litecoin close to or above the current price of bitcoin.
I am not an engineer but I have read many things written on this subject by qualified people.
The speed/efficiency of a prototype circuit on an fpga board is a good baseline for what you would expect from asic technology.
If I were running the coin I would not switch the algorithm out of 'fear' of new technology design.
That being said the design of Memory Coin 2 is the 'most' asic resistant I am aware of at this time.
So you would agree switching to X11 is a good choice and move?
Blake 256 is a strong choice for speed but if your concern is to avoid fpga or asic mining blake 256
is mined now on fpga & although they do not exist (to my knowledge) asic for blake 256 would not be as expensive as scrypt 1024.
If your goal is to switch the coins algorithm to something else after the coin has had some success and that goal is driven by 'fear' of asic technology consider a few things.
1) Any algorithm can be mined with custom hardware that is designed to mine it.
2) The cost of the development of this hardware is the barrier.
3) It costs millions of dollars to design , develop & build asic technology.
I doubt that scrypt 1024 asic technology will be available for a while since the costs of development are so high
you would need to see the price of litecoin close to or above the current price of bitcoin.
I am not an engineer but I have read many things written on this subject by qualified people.
The speed/efficiency of a prototype circuit on an fpga board is a good baseline for what you would expect from asic technology.
If I were running the coin I would not switch the algorithm out of 'fear' of new technology design.
That being said the design of Memory Coin 2 is the 'most' asic resistant I am aware of at this time.
is mined now on fpga & although they do not exist (to my knowledge) asic for blake 256 would not be as expensive as scrypt 1024.
If your goal is to switch the coins algorithm to something else after the coin has had some success and that goal is driven by 'fear' of asic technology consider a few things.
1) Any algorithm can be mined with custom hardware that is designed to mine it.
2) The cost of the development of this hardware is the barrier.
3) It costs millions of dollars to design , develop & build asic technology.
I doubt that scrypt 1024 asic technology will be available for a while since the costs of development are so high
you would need to see the price of litecoin close to or above the current price of bitcoin.
I am not an engineer but I have read many things written on this subject by qualified people.
The speed/efficiency of a prototype circuit on an fpga board is a good baseline for what you would expect from asic technology.
If I were running the coin I would not switch the algorithm out of 'fear' of new technology design.
That being said the design of Memory Coin 2 is the 'most' asic resistant I am aware of at this time.
Hello all.
This is my first post related to EMC2, but I have been mining it for about a week now and reading through the main forum discussions, so I'm somewhat up to speed on the concerns being voiced about switching away from the scrypt algorithm. From what I've read so far, it seems that the community is ready to jump to X11. But what I haven't read, is a detailed technical argument by someone who really understands the difference between the various algorithms available. Voting is a great way to build consensus and strengthen the community, but it does not always guarantee the best course of action is taken, particularly when the voters have a lack of detailed knowledge on the subject matter. Let me say right now that I am no expert in the field of crytos or algorithms or computer science at all. I am a control systems engineer by trade and a supporter of cryptos because I believe their integration into societies will help to create better environments than current monetary systems are providing for 99% of the worlds population. That out of the way, I would like to suggest that this decision not be made in haste by the developers, and that the community discussing this switch understand and agree WHY the switch is being made before deciding WHAT to switch to.
From what I've read on the EMC2 forums thus far, it appears that almost everyone agrees that ASICs are bad news for the future of this coin and most scrypt coins in general. I agree with this sentiment from both a miners perspective, and a 'historical' perspective. That is, scrypt was an alternative algorithm to SHA-256 initially implemented to prevent (or at least resist) the ASIC generated potential of centralizing a blockchain network. It goes without saying that blockchain networks must remain distributed to preserve the trust-less encryption protocol that is their genius. The instant that a 51% condition arises, is the instant that a blockchain network becomes incapable of performing its primary function as a trust-less verification system. Thus preventing a 51% condition via integration of ASICs into the network becomes the single most important reason to switch algorithms now that ASICs are on the horizon. Thus to me it seems, whatever algorithm the developers decide to switch to, should be the one that is most resistant to ASICs. If multiple algos have near identical ASIC resistivity, then and only then, should features such as power consumption be considered.
So the question then becomes, which algorithm is the most ASIC resistant? And just as important, who is qualified to answer that question? I don't feel comfortable voting on this topic because I have no idea what the answer is. I could search around the internet and read article after article and become more informed, but then I'm dependent upon the authors presentation of the information, which may or may not be completely accurate. I could read white papers by the developers of different algos, but when I tried reading the Bitcoin white paper, I had to skim it because I lack the vocabulary to understand the details presented. I could invest some serious time and fully educate myself on encryption algorithms, why RAM is necessary and how its circumvented, and how it all relates to blockchains, but there's no need for me to do that when people with that knowledge already exist. So the duty of the Einsteinium development team then becomes to seek out the experts on this subject and get first hand information so that they increase the likelihood of choosing the best course of action. From my understanding, experts on this subject are very forthcoming with their knowledge, as evidenced by the plethora of open source code they release, and can be readily found drinking spiked punch at Bitcoin conventions and crypto Meet-ups.
I know it feels like time is pressing and a decision must be made now, but this coin has a purpose based in love and a strong supporting community, it will survive a few ASIC whales long enough to allow the necessary time to gather quality information and make an informed decision.
This is my first post related to EMC2, but I have been mining it for about a week now and reading through the main forum discussions, so I'm somewhat up to speed on the concerns being voiced about switching away from the scrypt algorithm. From what I've read so far, it seems that the community is ready to jump to X11. But what I haven't read, is a detailed technical argument by someone who really understands the difference between the various algorithms available. Voting is a great way to build consensus and strengthen the community, but it does not always guarantee the best course of action is taken, particularly when the voters have a lack of detailed knowledge on the subject matter. Let me say right now that I am no expert in the field of crytos or algorithms or computer science at all. I am a control systems engineer by trade and a supporter of cryptos because I believe their integration into societies will help to create better environments than current monetary systems are providing for 99% of the worlds population. That out of the way, I would like to suggest that this decision not be made in haste by the developers, and that the community discussing this switch understand and agree WHY the switch is being made before deciding WHAT to switch to.
From what I've read on the EMC2 forums thus far, it appears that almost everyone agrees that ASICs are bad news for the future of this coin and most scrypt coins in general. I agree with this sentiment from both a miners perspective, and a 'historical' perspective. That is, scrypt was an alternative algorithm to SHA-256 initially implemented to prevent (or at least resist) the ASIC generated potential of centralizing a blockchain network. It goes without saying that blockchain networks must remain distributed to preserve the trust-less encryption protocol that is their genius. The instant that a 51% condition arises, is the instant that a blockchain network becomes incapable of performing its primary function as a trust-less verification system. Thus preventing a 51% condition via integration of ASICs into the network becomes the single most important reason to switch algorithms now that ASICs are on the horizon. Thus to me it seems, whatever algorithm the developers decide to switch to, should be the one that is most resistant to ASICs. If multiple algos have near identical ASIC resistivity, then and only then, should features such as power consumption be considered.
So the question then becomes, which algorithm is the most ASIC resistant? And just as important, who is qualified to answer that question? I don't feel comfortable voting on this topic because I have no idea what the answer is. I could search around the internet and read article after article and become more informed, but then I'm dependent upon the authors presentation of the information, which may or may not be completely accurate. I could read white papers by the developers of different algos, but when I tried reading the Bitcoin white paper, I had to skim it because I lack the vocabulary to understand the details presented. I could invest some serious time and fully educate myself on encryption algorithms, why RAM is necessary and how its circumvented, and how it all relates to blockchains, but there's no need for me to do that when people with that knowledge already exist. So the duty of the Einsteinium development team then becomes to seek out the experts on this subject and get first hand information so that they increase the likelihood of choosing the best course of action. From my understanding, experts on this subject are very forthcoming with their knowledge, as evidenced by the plethora of open source code they release, and can be readily found drinking spiked punch at Bitcoin conventions and crypto Meet-ups.
I know it feels like time is pressing and a decision must be made now, but this coin has a purpose based in love and a strong supporting community, it will survive a few ASIC whales long enough to allow the necessary time to gather quality information and make an informed decision.
Hi KadiumRA
X11 is a an algorithm that was created by 11 different ones, making it super secure. It also lowers the temperature of the GPU's and uses a lot less electricity. It's also around 3 times faster then scrypt. To sum it up it's a lot securer, more efficient and faster (in terms of hashing). X11 and Blake 256 are the best algos now and it looks like a lot of. Coins are heading that way. I can assure you that it's the best choice for this coin.
Kind regards,
Snoop
Hello all.
This is my first post related to EMC2, but I have been mining it for about a week now and reading through the main forum discussions, so I'm somewhat up to speed on the concerns being voiced about switching away from the scrypt algorithm. From what I've read so far, it seems that the community is ready to jump to X11. But what I haven't read, is a detailed technical argument by someone who really understands the difference between the various algorithms available. Voting is a great way to build consensus and strengthen the community, but it does not always guarantee the best course of action is taken, particularly when the voters have a lack of detailed knowledge on the subject matter. Let me say right now that I am no expert in the field of crytos or algorithms or computer science at all. I am a control systems engineer by trade and a supporter of cryptos because I believe their integration into societies will help to create better environments than current monetary systems are providing for 99% of the worlds population. That out of the way, I would like to suggest that this decision not be made in haste by the developers, and that the community discussing this switch understand and agree WHY the switch is being made before deciding WHAT to switch to.
From what I've read on the EMC2 forums thus far, it appears that almost everyone agrees that ASICs are bad news for the future of this coin and most scrypt coins in general. I agree with this sentiment from both a miners perspective, and a 'historical' perspective. That is, scrypt was an alternative algorithm to SHA-256 initially implemented to prevent (or at least resist) the ASIC generated potential of centralizing a blockchain network. It goes without saying that blockchain networks must remain distributed to preserve the trust-less encryption protocol that is their genius. The instant that a 51% condition arises, is the instant that a blockchain network becomes incapable of performing its primary function as a trust-less verification system. Thus preventing a 51% condition via integration of ASICs into the network becomes the single most important reason to switch algorithms now that ASICs are on the horizon. Thus to me it seems, whatever algorithm the developers decide to switch to, should be the one that is most resistant to ASICs. If multiple algos have near identical ASIC resistivity, then and only then, should features such as power consumption be considered.
So the question then becomes, which algorithm is the most ASIC resistant? And just as important, who is qualified to answer that question? I don't feel comfortable voting on this topic because I have no idea what the answer is. I could search around the internet and read article after article and become more informed, but then I'm dependent upon the authors presentation of the information, which may or may not be completely accurate. I could read white papers by the developers of different algos, but when I tried reading the Bitcoin white paper, I had to skim it because I lack the vocabulary to understand the details presented. I could invest some serious time and fully educate myself on encryption algorithms, why RAM is necessary and how its circumvented, and how it all relates to blockchains, but there's no need for me to do that when people with that knowledge already exist. So the duty of the Einsteinium development team then becomes to seek out the experts on this subject and get first hand information so that they increase the likelihood of choosing the best course of action. From my understanding, experts on this subject are very forthcoming with their knowledge, as evidenced by the plethora of open source code they release, and can be readily found drinking spiked punch at Bitcoin conventions and crypto Meet-ups.
I know it feels like time is pressing and a decision must be made now, but this coin has a purpose based in love and a strong supporting community, it will survive a few ASIC whales long enough to allow the necessary time to gather quality information and make an informed decision.
This is my first post related to EMC2, but I have been mining it for about a week now and reading through the main forum discussions, so I'm somewhat up to speed on the concerns being voiced about switching away from the scrypt algorithm. From what I've read so far, it seems that the community is ready to jump to X11. But what I haven't read, is a detailed technical argument by someone who really understands the difference between the various algorithms available. Voting is a great way to build consensus and strengthen the community, but it does not always guarantee the best course of action is taken, particularly when the voters have a lack of detailed knowledge on the subject matter. Let me say right now that I am no expert in the field of crytos or algorithms or computer science at all. I am a control systems engineer by trade and a supporter of cryptos because I believe their integration into societies will help to create better environments than current monetary systems are providing for 99% of the worlds population. That out of the way, I would like to suggest that this decision not be made in haste by the developers, and that the community discussing this switch understand and agree WHY the switch is being made before deciding WHAT to switch to.
From what I've read on the EMC2 forums thus far, it appears that almost everyone agrees that ASICs are bad news for the future of this coin and most scrypt coins in general. I agree with this sentiment from both a miners perspective, and a 'historical' perspective. That is, scrypt was an alternative algorithm to SHA-256 initially implemented to prevent (or at least resist) the ASIC generated potential of centralizing a blockchain network. It goes without saying that blockchain networks must remain distributed to preserve the trust-less encryption protocol that is their genius. The instant that a 51% condition arises, is the instant that a blockchain network becomes incapable of performing its primary function as a trust-less verification system. Thus preventing a 51% condition via integration of ASICs into the network becomes the single most important reason to switch algorithms now that ASICs are on the horizon. Thus to me it seems, whatever algorithm the developers decide to switch to, should be the one that is most resistant to ASICs. If multiple algos have near identical ASIC resistivity, then and only then, should features such as power consumption be considered.
So the question then becomes, which algorithm is the most ASIC resistant? And just as important, who is qualified to answer that question? I don't feel comfortable voting on this topic because I have no idea what the answer is. I could search around the internet and read article after article and become more informed, but then I'm dependent upon the authors presentation of the information, which may or may not be completely accurate. I could read white papers by the developers of different algos, but when I tried reading the Bitcoin white paper, I had to skim it because I lack the vocabulary to understand the details presented. I could invest some serious time and fully educate myself on encryption algorithms, why RAM is necessary and how its circumvented, and how it all relates to blockchains, but there's no need for me to do that when people with that knowledge already exist. So the duty of the Einsteinium development team then becomes to seek out the experts on this subject and get first hand information so that they increase the likelihood of choosing the best course of action. From my understanding, experts on this subject are very forthcoming with their knowledge, as evidenced by the plethora of open source code they release, and can be readily found drinking spiked punch at Bitcoin conventions and crypto Meet-ups.
I know it feels like time is pressing and a decision must be made now, but this coin has a purpose based in love and a strong supporting community, it will survive a few ASIC whales long enough to allow the necessary time to gather quality information and make an informed decision.
X11 is the only way to go... Summer is coming and this algorithm rocks with the cool temp and low energy use.
X11 rules 
Leave all shitcoins for ASICs - X11 FTW 
X11 is a an algorithm that was created by 11 different ones, making it super secure. It also lowers the temperature of the GPU's and uses a lot less electricity. It's also around 3 times faster then scrypt. To sum it up it's a lot securer, more efficient and faster (in terms of hashing). X11 and Blake 256 are the best algos now and it looks like a lot of. Coins are heading that way. I can assure you that it's the best choice for this coin.
I vote for X11!!!
I vote for X11!!!
Guys, as dbrause (one of our developers) has noted, we are now testing X11. We always appreciate the communities input!
X11 all the way!
I voted X11
Team is awesome but the coin feature is same as some shitcoins, I strongly suggest to change algo to X11. Cheers
as long as its still can be mine..not big different what algo to be choose imo
The difference is about 60% less power and 20C less heat.Which gpu you use? How many watt?
I use Hefty1 and 290 give me 100watt
Jump to: