Quote
So if FPGA's are better than GPU's in every way (like ASIC's)
They aren't. FPGA are much more expensive than a GPU and hash less. But they consume much much less energy. ASIC are better in everything and a LOT better
Topic: Why ASIC's Should Not Be The Future Of Crypto Currencies - page 4. (Read 11103 times)
ASIC are better in everything and a LOT better
Good discussion. However there is one very poor argument being pushed against the OP which I must expose.
Many of you are saying that as ASICs are a threat to the network security it is imperative that the public get easy access to this before a potentially malicious entity does. Well no shit captain obvious, but the error is you are saying this in itself will be a good thing.
His point is that such a weakness is a sort of unforseen 'design fault' in bitcoin, and so attempting to fix the fault by flooding the market is not going to cause a benefit. Total hashrate is irrelevant, only the relative difficulty of the hashing between honest miners and the malicious is important.
A 'weak' highly parallelisable algo will always be open to this attack vector.
So bitcoin will probably survive this event, but to say its a big advantage just because total hashrate will increase 100x is ridiculous imo.
Many of you are saying that as ASICs are a threat to the network security it is imperative that the public get easy access to this before a potentially malicious entity does. Well no shit captain obvious, but the error is you are saying this in itself will be a good thing.
His point is that such a weakness is a sort of unforseen 'design fault' in bitcoin, and so attempting to fix the fault by flooding the market is not going to cause a benefit. Total hashrate is irrelevant, only the relative difficulty of the hashing between honest miners and the malicious is important.
A 'weak' highly parallelisable algo will always be open to this attack vector.
So bitcoin will probably survive this event, but to say its a big advantage just because total hashrate will increase 100x is ridiculous imo.
People who are worried about ASIC distribution can simply become ASIC resellers, I'd assume. Buy lots more than you need then resell them.
@MysteryMiner, you call BFL a scam, where is the proof that BFL has scammed anyone? Can you name a single person that has bought a product from BFL that they didn't receive or didn't receive a requested refund that is not in accordance with published policies?
It appears to me that you don't understand the manufacturing process of an ASCI product so let me give you a short description of the process. First you have the prototyping stage. This is often done with an FPGA as an FPGA is easily reprogrammed to optimize a product. Once the program is finalized for the FPGA you then give that to the ASIC foundry. Weeks or months later you have your ASICs.
BFL is the only Bitcoin ASIC product producer that has shown pictures of their product offerings. MysteryMiner why aren't you calling other Bitcion ASIC producers scammers? Have you seen any pictures from them, aren't they also taking pre-orders? BFL has been shipping FPGA miners for months, get the hint?
MysteryMiner, I wonder if you will have the honor to retract your false statements about BFL and apologize once BFL's ASIC products begin shipping. It's one thing to say 'I think their scammers' or 'it sounds like a scam to me' but it's another thing entirely to call a company a scam. I wont mention that your statements appear to be libelous. If your in the US, BFL could take legal action against you. If your in the UK libelous laws are much tougher. I am not suggesting they would but I do expect from you a 'bring it on bitch' reply. But it does no good to sue someone that doesn't have the assets to recover in a victorious law suit.
MysteryMiner I know what your going to say an employee/founder/investor has a criminal history. If you think that someone is willing to risk 10-30 years in prison for a second conviction maybe that says more about how you would act, your thinking and how you value money. Let us not forget that it was you MysteryMiner that said "And I would be able to synchronize my computer when I come out of jail if something bad happens." That is a prophetic statement of how you live your life. And when you use terms like 'faggotry' intending it to be an insult it makes you look like your sexually insecure. MysteryMiner are you insecure with your sexuality?
It appears to me that you don't understand the manufacturing process of an ASCI product so let me give you a short description of the process. First you have the prototyping stage. This is often done with an FPGA as an FPGA is easily reprogrammed to optimize a product. Once the program is finalized for the FPGA you then give that to the ASIC foundry. Weeks or months later you have your ASICs.
BFL is the only Bitcoin ASIC product producer that has shown pictures of their product offerings. MysteryMiner why aren't you calling other Bitcion ASIC producers scammers? Have you seen any pictures from them, aren't they also taking pre-orders? BFL has been shipping FPGA miners for months, get the hint?
MysteryMiner, I wonder if you will have the honor to retract your false statements about BFL and apologize once BFL's ASIC products begin shipping. It's one thing to say 'I think their scammers' or 'it sounds like a scam to me' but it's another thing entirely to call a company a scam. I wont mention that your statements appear to be libelous. If your in the US, BFL could take legal action against you. If your in the UK libelous laws are much tougher. I am not suggesting they would but I do expect from you a 'bring it on bitch' reply. But it does no good to sue someone that doesn't have the assets to recover in a victorious law suit.
MysteryMiner I know what your going to say an employee/founder/investor has a criminal history. If you think that someone is willing to risk 10-30 years in prison for a second conviction maybe that says more about how you would act, your thinking and how you value money. Let us not forget that it was you MysteryMiner that said "And I would be able to synchronize my computer when I come out of jail if something bad happens." That is a prophetic statement of how you live your life. And when you use terms like 'faggotry' intending it to be an insult it makes you look like your sexually insecure. MysteryMiner are you insecure with your sexuality?
So the transition from CPU -> GPU is just like the transition from GPU -> FPGA which is just like the transition from FGPA -> ASIC, with the exception of the fact that there's no transition any time soon from ASIC. It's the end of the line and you'll see stepwise improvements from here on out, not 10x or 100x increase in efficiency and hashing power. If your first gen ASIC is power efficient, you can be mining on it through at least 3 generations of ASICs, unlike CPU, GPU and FPGAs which always had the specter of new technology making old technology obsolete.
This is an excellent point.
I simply believe there will be problems with the distribution, not ASIC in general.
You seem to be equating the success of bitcoin with the number of human beings using mining equipment. I'd say there's an optimal number somewhere, maybe a few thousand people, that are needed to keep the diversity of mining healthy. Too few people and you risk one set of problems. Too many people and you have another set of problems. But the primary reason for mining is to secure the network. ASICs will bring much increased security to the blockchain, as long as there's enough of them. And by all accounts, there are plenty of people pre-ordering ASICs, so there's nothing to worry about. Not everyone that uses bitcoin needs to be a miner. In fact, we don't want everyone to be a miner. There is much overhead with being a miner. It's not appropriate for everyone.
Quote
So if FPGA's are better than GPU's in every way (like ASIC's), why didn't everyone switch to FPGA's? Why can't you buy a Bitcoin FPGA at your local computer store? Your answer is in my original post. The answer is centralized distribution, as well as problems with supply/demand. Which is also the reason i own GPU's, and not FPGA's. As well as many others. Even though i wanted some! I feel we may have a repeat of this all over again with ASIC's.
Huh... this is actually a pretty interesting statement and illustrates a completely separate, seemingly unrelated point very well.
Why didn't everyone switch to FPGAs? First off, all the serious miners did, or if not "switched" they added FPGAs to their farm. The small time/hobby miners continued to mine on GPUs, because that's what they had/what they were already invested in. There is virtually no large scale miners that remained solely on GPUs, only the hobby miners remained in the GPU arena exclusively. But this illustrates the point that so many people just want to ignore or deny, but you can see it in action right here.
Why do people still mine on GPUs? Because they are still profitable. That's the short, simply and really only answer. They do it because they turn a profit. When GPUs stop turning a profit, they will stop. The same can be said for FPGAs, people will continue to mine on them while they still turn a profit, even in the face of gen2 ASICs. What does this mean for the ASICs though?
It simply means power efficiency is the most important aspect of an ASIC. I do wholeheartedly admit that the first two weeks of mining on ASICs is all going to be about hashing power and whoever gets the most hashing power first will be the winner, as it were. After the first few weeks (two, three, four?) it will be about the power... and as you look down the road to 6 months, or a year, or even two years, as long as an ASIC is profitable, people will still mine on it. Just like people are still mining on GPUs.
So the transition from CPU -> GPU is just like the transition from GPU -> FPGA which is just like the transition from FGPA -> ASIC, with the exception of the fact that there's no transition any time soon from ASIC. It's the end of the line and you'll see stepwise improvements from here on out, not 10x or 100x increase in efficiency and hashing power. If your first gen ASIC is power efficient, you can be mining on it through at least 3 generations of ASICs, unlike CPU, GPU and FPGAs which always had the specter of new technology making old technology obsolete.
There are a few things i would like to set straight. I am not writing this because i have a GPU farm, or because i hate ASIC's, or even because i'm a Litecoin supporter. On the contrary, i only have three GPU's, i think the idea and potential benefits ASIC could bring is wonderful, and even though i am a Litecoin supporter, i am only one because of my perceived threats from ASIC, which i mentioned in my original post. Nevertheless, i have mined much more Bitcoin than Litecoin in my past, and continue to do so today. Basically, when it comes down to it, i am a Bitcoin supporter first!
I simply believe there will be problems with the distribution, not ASIC in general.
Ok, so on the topic of distribution.
Intel and AMD's CPU's and GPU's can be bought from many more than two sources! When i say sources, i'm talking about distributors/local retail locations. Even if at one time it was harder to find a GPU, that was short lived, and bound to change because of the size of video card manufacturers. I do not believe that Bitcoin ASIC/FPGA manufacturers have the size and capacity to distribute at a high enough volume to meet the demand. Which leads to my main concerns about distribution.
This concern has already been put to the test i believe, and in my opinion has not worked out as people would have thought it would. My example is FPGA's. Yes, some of you (which have mocked my post above) have made example saying moving towards ASIC is the same as going from CPU to GPU, and GPU to FPGA. The only problem with that example is that when we moved to GPU, almost everyone started mining with a GPU. And when we moved to FPGA's, a much smaller percent of the community moved to FPGA's, and that is with the added fact that FPGA's use much less electricity, and are easier to use/setup than a GPU mining rig.
So if FPGA's are better than GPU's in every way (like ASIC's), why didn't everyone switch to FPGA's? Why can't you buy a Bitcoin FPGA at your local computer store? Your answer is in my original post. The answer is centralized distribution, as well as problems with supply/demand. Which is also the reason i own GPU's, and not FPGA's. As well as many others. Even though i wanted some! I feel we may have a repeat of this all over again with ASIC's.
I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but i believe that more than 50% of the miners out there use GPU's, and it has been more than six months since FPGA's have been announced/released for pre-order. Back when GPU mining software came available for Bitcoin, within six months the GPU adoption level was much higher than 50%. Which in my opinion shows the adoption rate for Bitcoin mining is much lower when the mining hardware distribution is more centralized. Which leads to to my primary concerns about centralized distribution in my original post.
It's simple economics!? :/
Jay1337
I simply believe there will be problems with the distribution, not ASIC in general.
Ok, so on the topic of distribution.
Intel and AMD's CPU's and GPU's can be bought from many more than two sources! When i say sources, i'm talking about distributors/local retail locations. Even if at one time it was harder to find a GPU, that was short lived, and bound to change because of the size of video card manufacturers. I do not believe that Bitcoin ASIC/FPGA manufacturers have the size and capacity to distribute at a high enough volume to meet the demand. Which leads to my main concerns about distribution.
This concern has already been put to the test i believe, and in my opinion has not worked out as people would have thought it would. My example is FPGA's. Yes, some of you (which have mocked my post above) have made example saying moving towards ASIC is the same as going from CPU to GPU, and GPU to FPGA. The only problem with that example is that when we moved to GPU, almost everyone started mining with a GPU. And when we moved to FPGA's, a much smaller percent of the community moved to FPGA's, and that is with the added fact that FPGA's use much less electricity, and are easier to use/setup than a GPU mining rig.
So if FPGA's are better than GPU's in every way (like ASIC's), why didn't everyone switch to FPGA's? Why can't you buy a Bitcoin FPGA at your local computer store? Your answer is in my original post. The answer is centralized distribution, as well as problems with supply/demand. Which is also the reason i own GPU's, and not FPGA's. As well as many others. Even though i wanted some! I feel we may have a repeat of this all over again with ASIC's.
I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but i believe that more than 50% of the miners out there use GPU's, and it has been more than six months since FPGA's have been announced/released for pre-order. Back when GPU mining software came available for Bitcoin, within six months the GPU adoption level was much higher than 50%. Which in my opinion shows the adoption rate for Bitcoin mining is much lower when the mining hardware distribution is more centralized. Which leads to to my primary concerns about centralized distribution in my original post.
It's simple economics!? :/
Jay1337
So uh, what is the OP's proposal? ASIC's can't be prevented from being made. Even Litecoin ASICs will come into being quite quickly if the Litecoin market cap and mining proceeds make it reasonable to create them.
Basically, whether you believe ASICs are good for any of these crypto-currencies or not doesn't matter. They are coming either way, and there's no way to stop them.
Basically, whether you believe ASICs are good for any of these crypto-currencies or not doesn't matter. They are coming either way, and there's no way to stop them.
Anyone who thinks litecoin is the answer to anything needs to spend like, 15 seconds thinking about the topic. Anything that happens to BTC will happen to litecoin eventually. The only thing the rise of litecoin would bring is the downfall of cryptocurrency all together.
And if you say you have already thought about it...then think harder.
And if you say you have already thought about it...then think harder.
ASIC's are just going to speed up the process of centralizing the money, and making the poor poorer and the rich richer to an even greater extent than things are already.
Imho ASICs will help us secure Bitcoin from being sabotaged by governments and thus help us take away the control over money printing from the rich. Which in fact will enable the poor to get richer.
Quote
It's quite easy to throw 128k of sram on a chip and scream out one cycle/hash. You'd get an even bigger speedup over GPUs and CPUs than you get from Bitcoin.
Yes, wow, i didn't think it would be so easy to make one
Also, i realize some of the things i say are highly theoretical, but i'm just looking at all possibilities.
My main concern is the centralized distribution of ASIC's. I mean, i can walk down my street and pick up a GPU. Can that be done with an ASIC?
It wasn't always possible to pick up a GPU either. Over time things will change. Ces't la vie.
actually i should have said
"can only be bought from a few sources"
"can only be bought from a few sources"
Market tendencies will surely bring in more competition for them, right?
Quote
Please act professional since you're representing BFL. What a joke.
BFL itself is a joke. Scam to be more exact. And he is acting fully professional - rebutting criticism to ASIC technology to get every single ASIC preorder until they reveal that no ASIC miner is made.Quote
Try presenting rational arguments instead of reposting the same thing over and over again. You both look like stupid children.
Take some smoke and read the texts where the CPU technology is criticized over older pencil and paper technology. The trolling shows the OP concerns as completely invalid. All that was done is automatic replacing words containing previous technology with technology generation before that.Quote
CPU's are not a natural technological generation leap like going from rocks-and-seashells to pencil-and-paper was. CPU's are simply specialized processing units made specifically for Bitcoin.
I spilled my beer on the floor when I started to read after finishing Find And Replace in Notepad++ 
OP just wasted bitcointalk.org SQL database space with pointless rambling.
I wonder about the computational burden of my "ignore" list. Likely insignificant compared to the burden of having to read through useless, misguided ramblings in the future. 
Why CPU's Should Not Be The Future Of Crypto Currencies
CPU's are not a natural technological generation leap like going from rocks-and-seashells to pencil-and-paper was. CPU's are simply specialized processing units made specifically for Bitcoin. Which i do not beleive is following the original intentions of Satoshi, for many reasons.
Moving from pencil-and-paper to CPU mining will not be the same as going from rocks-and-seashells to pencil-and-paper mining. The reason here is because rocks-and-seashells's and pencil-and-paper's have decentralized distribution. They are mass produced by huge companies giving you the option to buy their products in any city, no matter where you live! This allows us to be in control of when and where we get our mining hardware, and to a certain degree, at what cost. (Which helps the decentralization process). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization
While on the other hand, CPU's are/will not be mass produced, supply is controlled, price is controlled, they are in limited quantity, can only be bought from a few companies/sources, that in reality nobody even knows for sure they can trust. So what will happen is all the miners in the world will be forced to rely on those few small companies for CPU's, as well as the small quantities that they produce. And we will be subject to their pricing. They will also control the supply of the mining rigs, which can have an effect on the bitcoin economy that is similar to the effect that the U.S Federal Reserve and banks have on the money supply. I'm not talking about the amount of money/BTC, but when it is available/mineable to the miners. This allows CPU manufacturers to be in control of when and where we get our mining hardware. (All this hurts the decentralization process)
People will have to rely on the small quantities that these companies produce, which causes people to have wait for their hardware, which in the end causes people to potentially lose money. This is exactly what is happening right now. Many people are waiting to see what happens with CPU's, so that they can start buying mining hardware again. So, basically if CPU didn't exist people would continue to pencils and papers as i type this, which would have meant more profit for those people now and in the future, which would have meant more money in those peoples pockets. This is where the 'Federal Reserve effect' comes in, because now mining hardware companies can control when people buy/receive their hardware, plus control when people get more or less profit through controlling the mining hardware supply. Also, buying CPU's from a few small companies means whenever those companies come out with a new model, this process will start all over again. More lost money, more time lost waiting for release/shipping.
Another downfall of CPU, is the fact that CPU's will make everyone have to 'restart from scratch' buying mining hardware all over again, when most people already have their mining hardware in the form of pencils and papers, and it is already payed off. Now you will have to sell all your pencils and papers, then have to buy $1000's of dollars of CPU's just to be able to keep up with all the other players with the increasing difficulty. After that, you will have to wait all over again to get your return on your investment! Which could take half a year or more, once difficulty adjusts, which should just take about a month or so.
Once CPU comes out, the difficulty will adjust accordingly. Which will just cause everyone to make the same amount of money as they were before CPU's. So the question is, is it necessary for us to go through all of what i mentioned above, to just end up making the same amount of money as you were before with pencil-and-paper's, just a month or so later, with CPU's?
Because of the above mentioned costs, plus the added cost of CPU'S, this can hinder the widespread global adoption of Bitcoin just because of the sheer expense. This is especially true for people in other smaller, less wealthy countries. It is much easier to obtain a used video card for those people. People that could be helping to build security and decentralization for Bitcoin!
CPU's threaten to ruin any anonymity that Bitcoin has left. This is by potentially making it easier to track who is buying the mining rigs through the few small companies that sell the CPU's. Which could potentially be bad if Bitcoin ever became illegal!
There are also many more smaller disadvantages of moving towards CPU that are of less importance.
So now it comes to the advantages of CPU. That's where everything boils down to in the end. The problem is there are not enough advantages to using CPU, for them to outweigh the disadvantages it brings to the table! In my opinion, network security and lowered power consumption cannot make up for the potential problems that it brings. This is an economy. This is not about power consumption! It will all come down to economics in the end. And that is what I'm talking about. And that is the infostructure that Satoshi built Bitcoin on!
The Bitcoin developers, and the Crypto Community in general needs the recognize CPU's as a threat, and we should all do something to stop this from happening. I do not think that Satoshi would think the way these CPU's are to be distributed would be good for the Bitcoin economy in general. There are a few things we can do to combat this, like changing the algorithm to prevent the usage of CPU's. Or, we could all switch to another crypto currency that that uses a different algorithm that is resistant to CPU's, like Litecoin, so that we can save Bitcoin and our crypto-independence!
By Switching To Another Bitcoin Algorithm, Or By Using Litecoin We Can Save Our Crypto-Independence!
The only options we have now is to change the Bitcoin algorithm, or for everyone to switch to another CPU proof crypto currency. The ideal situation would be for the Bitcoin developers to change the algorithm, but that does not seem to be what they plan to do. So that's where Litecoin comes in. While Litecoin is not CPU proof, it is CPU resistant. It runs on an algorithm called scrypt that is highly memory intensive, which makes it much harder to produce an CPU for Litecoin. Even if a company would find a way to produce an CPU for it, it would take at least a year to design, produce and ship them. So it would be our 'safe heaven' from CPU, saving us from the many disadvantages and negative effects that CPU threatens to bring to Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency world. At the very least, it would be buying us more time to work on something to prevent mining hardware companies from taking over our crypto currencies. People will be able to continue to pencil-and-paper mine, continue to profit, once again allowing us to be in control of when/where we buy our mining hardware, as well as, at what cost we buy it at. Allowing the control of the crypto world to stay in our hands, not the hands of greedy companies!
Jay1337
CPU's are not a natural technological generation leap like going from rocks-and-seashells to pencil-and-paper was. CPU's are simply specialized processing units made specifically for Bitcoin. Which i do not beleive is following the original intentions of Satoshi, for many reasons.
Moving from pencil-and-paper to CPU mining will not be the same as going from rocks-and-seashells to pencil-and-paper mining. The reason here is because rocks-and-seashells's and pencil-and-paper's have decentralized distribution. They are mass produced by huge companies giving you the option to buy their products in any city, no matter where you live! This allows us to be in control of when and where we get our mining hardware, and to a certain degree, at what cost. (Which helps the decentralization process). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization
While on the other hand, CPU's are/will not be mass produced, supply is controlled, price is controlled, they are in limited quantity, can only be bought from a few companies/sources, that in reality nobody even knows for sure they can trust. So what will happen is all the miners in the world will be forced to rely on those few small companies for CPU's, as well as the small quantities that they produce. And we will be subject to their pricing. They will also control the supply of the mining rigs, which can have an effect on the bitcoin economy that is similar to the effect that the U.S Federal Reserve and banks have on the money supply. I'm not talking about the amount of money/BTC, but when it is available/mineable to the miners. This allows CPU manufacturers to be in control of when and where we get our mining hardware. (All this hurts the decentralization process)
People will have to rely on the small quantities that these companies produce, which causes people to have wait for their hardware, which in the end causes people to potentially lose money. This is exactly what is happening right now. Many people are waiting to see what happens with CPU's, so that they can start buying mining hardware again. So, basically if CPU didn't exist people would continue to pencils and papers as i type this, which would have meant more profit for those people now and in the future, which would have meant more money in those peoples pockets. This is where the 'Federal Reserve effect' comes in, because now mining hardware companies can control when people buy/receive their hardware, plus control when people get more or less profit through controlling the mining hardware supply. Also, buying CPU's from a few small companies means whenever those companies come out with a new model, this process will start all over again. More lost money, more time lost waiting for release/shipping.
Another downfall of CPU, is the fact that CPU's will make everyone have to 'restart from scratch' buying mining hardware all over again, when most people already have their mining hardware in the form of pencils and papers, and it is already payed off. Now you will have to sell all your pencils and papers, then have to buy $1000's of dollars of CPU's just to be able to keep up with all the other players with the increasing difficulty. After that, you will have to wait all over again to get your return on your investment! Which could take half a year or more, once difficulty adjusts, which should just take about a month or so.
Once CPU comes out, the difficulty will adjust accordingly. Which will just cause everyone to make the same amount of money as they were before CPU's. So the question is, is it necessary for us to go through all of what i mentioned above, to just end up making the same amount of money as you were before with pencil-and-paper's, just a month or so later, with CPU's?
Because of the above mentioned costs, plus the added cost of CPU'S, this can hinder the widespread global adoption of Bitcoin just because of the sheer expense. This is especially true for people in other smaller, less wealthy countries. It is much easier to obtain a used video card for those people. People that could be helping to build security and decentralization for Bitcoin!
CPU's threaten to ruin any anonymity that Bitcoin has left. This is by potentially making it easier to track who is buying the mining rigs through the few small companies that sell the CPU's. Which could potentially be bad if Bitcoin ever became illegal!
There are also many more smaller disadvantages of moving towards CPU that are of less importance.
So now it comes to the advantages of CPU. That's where everything boils down to in the end. The problem is there are not enough advantages to using CPU, for them to outweigh the disadvantages it brings to the table! In my opinion, network security and lowered power consumption cannot make up for the potential problems that it brings. This is an economy. This is not about power consumption! It will all come down to economics in the end. And that is what I'm talking about. And that is the infostructure that Satoshi built Bitcoin on!
The Bitcoin developers, and the Crypto Community in general needs the recognize CPU's as a threat, and we should all do something to stop this from happening. I do not think that Satoshi would think the way these CPU's are to be distributed would be good for the Bitcoin economy in general. There are a few things we can do to combat this, like changing the algorithm to prevent the usage of CPU's. Or, we could all switch to another crypto currency that that uses a different algorithm that is resistant to CPU's, like Litecoin, so that we can save Bitcoin and our crypto-independence!
By Switching To Another Bitcoin Algorithm, Or By Using Litecoin We Can Save Our Crypto-Independence!
The only options we have now is to change the Bitcoin algorithm, or for everyone to switch to another CPU proof crypto currency. The ideal situation would be for the Bitcoin developers to change the algorithm, but that does not seem to be what they plan to do. So that's where Litecoin comes in. While Litecoin is not CPU proof, it is CPU resistant. It runs on an algorithm called scrypt that is highly memory intensive, which makes it much harder to produce an CPU for Litecoin. Even if a company would find a way to produce an CPU for it, it would take at least a year to design, produce and ship them. So it would be our 'safe heaven' from CPU, saving us from the many disadvantages and negative effects that CPU threatens to bring to Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency world. At the very least, it would be buying us more time to work on something to prevent mining hardware companies from taking over our crypto currencies. People will be able to continue to pencil-and-paper mine, continue to profit, once again allowing us to be in control of when/where we buy our mining hardware, as well as, at what cost we buy it at. Allowing the control of the crypto world to stay in our hands, not the hands of greedy companies!
Jay1337
lol @ inaba.. nice
Jump to: