And why? Because a few people on this forum didn't like that parallel sha256 made mining unprofitable for those without means? Please don't forget that the role of the miner is to provide security to the network, not to make you rich. Those hoards of GPU, FPGA/ASIC mining rigs provide security far, far better than any CPU-based system could. That time traveller attack? It still exists in bitcoin, but thanks to parallel miners, exploiting it would set you back millions of $$. With these new CPU-friendly, security-hostile *coins, any reasonable botnet operator will be able to herd more hashing capacity than the entire legitimate network, far into the foreseeable future.
Bingo.
CPU based systems are foolish. They serve no benefit other than to allow people without lots of expensive hardware to be "powerful". However they feel to realize that expensive hardware which makes it prohibitively expensive for them to have even 1% of the hashing power of bitcoin network also makes it prohibitively expensive for attackers to have 1% of the bitcoin network.
The "CPU friendly" coins are simply "no fair they got bigger toys. Let's start a sandbox where only small toys are allowed". The bad news is that your neighborhood botnet bully has 230,000 small toys ready to smash and CPU based chain.
The worse part is that this vulnerability will remain a part of the CPU chain for it's lifetime. Say
becomes very popular and someday has 100,000 nodes. Well the world's largest botnet could STILL easily crush it and crush it at any point in the future that it is either a) profitable to do so or b) interesting enough to destroy.
It is highly unlikely any CPU based chain will ever gain enough hashing power to be immune to botnets so that sword will remain hanging over the chain for a very long time.
This is the one serious argument against the new CPU coins. I really don't know enough to decide if it's a valid point or not.
What Locust claims is:
Q: What about botnets ? CPU mining is a haven for them, and they are eeeeeevil!
A: Well, actually, that's an interesting topic to discuss.
First and foremost, if it is possible to make a CPUsclusive cryptocurrency (and it seems that Tenebrix makes quite a solid practical argument in favor of possibility of such a feat), then it will be made eventually. So not making Tenebrix would have achieved nothing.
Second, I am firmly convinced that botnets, by virtue of need to remain somewhat covert, will not abuse their host machines too heavily with TBX minning, taking spare cycles here and there without encumbering the user too much (otherwise the malware will get noticed and exterminated), and assuming mining is lucrative, will avoid using infected machines for things that are likely to get a FBI clown car visit the formal owner of the infected box (such as transfer of highly illegal materials and attacks against legitimate infrastructure).
Thus, Tenebrix, should it succeed and achieve popularity, will lead to overall calmer, milder internet for all
His theory might or might not be valid, but let's test it, shall we? In a year or two, we'll see if Botnets harm the CPU coins enough, or not. I don't think a short discussion on the forums can bring enough evidence to fully confirm or refute this claim.
