Topic: There seems to be a case for creating CPU only coins (Read 1000 times)

I thought about that problem and possible solutions many times before.  The easiest method in accomplishing it would be to get rid of free, pseudo-infinite wallet addresses and have everyone's account linked to a single fixed address.  Some kind of abstraction layer, if you will, would then have to be built on top of the protocol to provide anonymity.  I posted about it in January here:

Bitcoin Capitalism vs Bitcoin Socialism and the inevitable death of Sunny King

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-capitalism-vs-bitcoin-socialism-and-the-inevitable-death-of-sunny-king-395769

As for other people's views on forcing Bitcoin back away from ASIC to CPU, Peter Todd just wrote something similar a few days ago with the same viewpoint as mine.  Meni Rosenfield then wrote something with a completely opposite viewpoint, that I disagree with:


The above argument makes no sense because he argues that Intel and AMD would own and run all the farms if we get rid of ASIC, yet do you actually believe Intel won't have a farm utilizing their state of the art manufacturing for ASIC if Bitcoin became the world reserve currency?

People are looking at the CPU problem backwards...
How to thwart botnets/cloud... the people you want to cut out.

Instead, look at the people you want to stay = Mr. Middle Class Miner...
The dedicated hobbyist who will tinker with mining software and build GPU rigs...
That is a VERY HIGH degree of commitment to a hobby.

This is 2014, there are smart cards, biometrics, a million security devices, etc, etc...
Your Middle Class Miner will accept and ONE CAN IMPOSE reasonable costs and inconvenience...
And for the privilege mining alts under fair rules created by the requirement for some human actions.

But no, everyone is brainwashed into the Bitcoin Mindset... into 2009 technology and thinking.

So soon... 3rd Gen startups like bitcloud, etc are gonna totally leapfrog this space...
Bitcloud has 1,300 reddit subscribers and a fucking decentralized node DB (blockchains are so 2009)...
Make your money while this very strange era lasts for a few short years.

then they should hard fork bitcoin, and make a hash limit based on ip or something , there is no other solution

Yacoin.

That is all, thanks!

In fact the memory requirements should exceed what you can cost-effectively
put on an ASIC. Then whatever ASIC is made for the PoW won't be self-contained
but reliant on additional, and much more expensive, memory modules, limiting
its speed&cost advantage over all-commodity solutions.

A coin with high memory requirements and low initial rewards
(ideally, max reward should not appear until several weeks or even months of mining)
makes for an unattractive botnet-target.

Botnet owners don't mind slowing computers down somewhat (people are used to that),
but the last thing they want to do is force people to take action once their computer
starts swapping excessively and becomes totally unusable.

It doesn't sound like you have ever ordered an ASIC before or realize what the future has in store for ASICs and how it will effect cryptocurrency.  It results in far too high of centralization of power  (ie:  cartels) because the hardware maker gets such an exponential mining advantage over everyone else.  If Bitcoin actually does succeed, there won't even be a reason for them to sell miners anymore because the risk is gone.  They will just make them and mine with them, then the only ones they do sell will either never ROI, or give you like 1%.  We're already starting to see that now.

It would require Moore's law and all derivatives of it to just stop in it's tracks for this not to be true.  Using general purpose hardware side skirts much of this issue.  The ASIC middleman is cut out of the mining equation and that money is transferred to the miner.  There is no logical case to be made for intentionally adding middlemen on purpose if you can try to prevent them.

One could argue that the miner is a middleman himself and should be cut out of the equation, but we have yet to see a version of PoS to beat PoW in decentralization and security.  Mining is also required somewhere in the pipeline for distribution even in the case of PoS coins because the IPO method is generally a scam as talked about in the first post.

I don't want a coin that's get hopped by large botnets and people with access to server farms , that's a big no for me.

Both Monero and Vertcoin are short-term solutions that do no scale since they are symmetric:
verifying a proof is as slow as looking for one.

The PoW I have in mind is not only memory bound but aims at vastly higher
memory requirements while remaining instantly verifiable.

Focusing on latency doesn't work IMO.  Monero attempted it with L3 cache latency and everyone that's looked at it knows it's not even a valid short term approach, let alone a long term one.  As primitive as the Vertcoin solution is, even that is a better approach.  Upping the raw memory requirements is a better roadblock against GPU and ASIC than trying to rig some latency trap.  Neither method will work in ensuring a coin stays CPU only though.

Only if a handful or fewer super computers dominate everyone else and their owners
are susceptible to collusion.

Otherwise, they're part of the solution.

Now, with CPU only coins will those top 100 super computers be a problem?

Focussing on power consumption suggests that you are focussing on compute-bound PoWs.
However, some memory-bound PoWs spend only 1/3 of time doing computations, and
2/3 waiting on random-access memory-latency, which makes power-consumption less of an issue.

It's only a "joke" when people are used to building giant GPU rigs, while very few people have built giant CPU mining rigs.  Nobody does it, so they see it as illogical in the current state of cryptocurrency.

CPU coins are a joke,  discussion useless.

I've always hated CPU mining due to botnets, and this is why I've always brushed it off as stupid, but ASIC cartels controlling and monopolizing cryptocurrency is a real problem that benefits nobody except the corporations that make them.  You will not understand just how bad it is until you've ordered one yourself.  It's pretty well known that GPU mined coins, such as Dogecoin, seem to have the best success at market penetration so far.  Market penetration is obviously a crucial factor in making a cryptocurrency succeed and should be factored into the design.  I decided to look into the economics of mining if creating a CPU only algorithm was possible.

Since mining comes down more to power consumption than anything, I was looking at prices of what it would cost to reach the same power consumption with CPUs vs GPUs.  

A 12 core Intel costs $2400.  Three quad core intels would cost $600 for same or better performance, so buying big CPUs doesn't seem like a good idea.  The bigger core count chips seem to do better in power consumption, but they're also clocked a lot lower, so it probably negates itself.

It would cost roughly $1600 for four AMD 290s and $2400 for 48 Intel CPU cores to reach similar power consumption (assuming the algo maxes out the GPU which only really scrypt does).  If mining a normal algorithm, the cost of hardware to reach same power consumption goes to $1600 for CPU and $1600 for GPU (4 AMD 290s vs 8 quad core CPU), so basically equal give or take.

If you were to ignore the botnet factor, which might not be that big if a coin like Bitcoin was mined as CPU only, it seems like there might be a solid case for trying to create a CPU only coin due to the barrier of entry being the same cost-wise for CPU and GPU.

*As a side note, I don't consider something like NXT to be a "CPU only coin" in the context of this discussion.  Anything premined with an IPO over the span of 1 second usually has an abysmal market penetration defeating the whole purpose of cryptocurrency, or just results in a pyramid scheme to try and force the masses to enrich a handful of people.  This isn't why Bitcoin was created and seems like a blatant hijack of it to turn it into a get rich quick scheme.  If the proof of stake coin is mined over a long period, like Bitcoin is, then my stance on that is obviously different.