Topic: Vertcoin - First Scrypt N | First Stealth Address - Privacy without mixer - page 241. (Read 1232727 times)

A repeatedly hard-forking coin is not suitable for real-world use or merchant adoption. Right now VTC is yet another low-market-cap trader's coin with a small user base so you can get away with this "mindset". Hopefully your eventual ambitions are grander than that.

i looked back a number of pages, all i saw him say was "PoS in not secure" with no further details. Need to back that up if going to make such a claim.

Where is your ability to Google and stay informed about important matters?

Anyways, go through the past few pages and look for Boris' statement on PoS.

how can you make such a claim? where is your proof?

Just read a little bit about scrypt functions, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrypt and the pages referenced there. You'll see that these algorithms have lots of parameters. Just change one/some of them and you're rendering any perhaps-at-some-time-in-Q3-existing ASIC useless.

So, basically, nothing to see here. Just move on and ignore the FUD and panic kids.

Seems clear  Thanks.

No comment 

Re it's performance, even FlowerTech won't know that yet (nor will they know power consumption) so really, it's complete vaporware at this stage

MON news: http://www.forexminute.com/litecoin/litecoin-inspired-vertcoin-announces-merged-mining-with-a-new-cryptocurrency-30545

Hey boris, is anyone in the dev team purposely purchasing one of the flower tech asics just to actually test it's stats when mining vert? I'd be curious to know if it is as good or better than gpu mining at all. It probably isn't.

Well, if you're concerned I would encourage you to gitian build it from source yourself using the howto at https://github.com/vertcoin/gitian.sigs.vtc and if you do please send a pull request with your sigs.

To a different algorithm of course!

VTC is not an algorithm, it's a mindset - we will do whatever is necessary to beat ASICs.

We will never be adding PoS (never say never they say, but in this case, I feel quite comfortable saying never) - it's highly insecure.

hoping the coin do some change,  such as pos and more application

I got it, but I uses many other Wallet-qt but they were only have very few positive. It weird.

it can't be hardforked forever i suppose lmao

Yes, but where will the devs hardfork if asic is capable to change N as well ? Don't mean to spread fud, I'm all in on vtc, but looks like things are moving a bit too fast ...

I have been thinking about it, I don't know if my line of thinking is right or not, but I just want to throw it out for your guys to critique and correct me where I'm wrong.

Here we go: These are built for Scrypt mining first right? So in order to maximize efficiency for Scrypt mining, there must be a balance between hashing cores and the amount of memory. Too many cores and not enough memory, you are not utilizing your cores to their potential. Too much memory and too little cores, die space is wasted.

So in the case of Scrypt mining (n=10), one would assume that the amount of memory available to the cores are exactly how much the cores need in order to maximize die space efficiency. You wouldn't want more memory than needed because that takes up precious die space, so we can assume the memory shipped is fixed exactly at how much n=10 mining needs.

Let's assume then that core:memory ratio is 1:1 to maximize die efficiency. When we look at n=11, the amount of memory needed per core is doubled. However, because fixed memory was specifically allocated for cores running at n=10, you now find yourself with "half" the usable memory since each core uses up double the memory. Now at n=11, your core:memory requirement is 1:2, and with a fixed amount of memory it means only half your total number of cores are utilized.

Looking at GPUs we have today, switching to n=11 immediately halves the hashrate and that is considering we have an abundance of memory. That means in the case of these "ASICs", mining at n=11 is probably going to cut the hash rate by 1/4, and another 1/4 for each increase in N Value.

One workaround is of course to provide more memory as overhead, but memory is expensive and die space is limited. As primarily Scrypt ASICs, it wouldn't make sense to increase production costs or by crippling Scrypt hashrates since that's what they are meant to do in the first place.

Of course all this is assuming reprogramming for Scrypt-N ASICs is even possible.

Again, this is what I think. It may or may not be wrong. Criticism is welcomed and I would gladly learn from others who have input on this matter.

Edit: Shitty drawing I made in paint to help visualize.
https://i.imgur.com/EWhWDMI.png[1] 

Its detected as a "virus" because bitcoin is something falsely detected as such (due to the malware that out there) - its a false positive.

Hello, I am trying install VTC wallet today for my first use, I found a strange things:

I use this thread link goto the https://www.vertcoin.org/, in the homepage there have two wallet download link  (middle and bottom location in homepage) , these link both pointing to https://github.com/vertcoin/vertcoin/releases

And then I download vertcoin-0.8.6.4-win32-setup.exe, it's 8.6MB, the files's MD5 value is 8f74fd1c159f739b2541b9e57eafc142

Before I use it, I used https://www.virustotal.com to scan the file, the result is 20/52 detection ratio say it's a virus!

Is that normal?

CORRECTION: Someone pointed out to me that it was Bliss Devices and not FlowerTech who used pictures of Intel NICs in their marketing.