OK bro
Topic: Why did ASIC-resistant multi-algo coins like Myriadcoin, Quark, etc. fail? (Read 2088 times)
June 15, 2015, 08:55:20 AM
MYR Failed?
OK bro
OK bro
June 15, 2015, 05:59:21 AM
The market is such that a new user who decides to pick his coin can either pick of more than a thousand different currencies. As the end user, bitcoin offers most of the advantages other altcoins do. Somthing needs to have a feature set to the end user to be something you can sell.
sdp
sdp
June 15, 2015, 05:32:20 AM
There are coins like Quark that use a mix of different algorithms and coins like Myriadcoin and Saffroncoin that use a chain with multiple algorithms. Myriadcoin and its clones are probably better described as being ASIC-tolerant since its co-existing PoW systems are able to accommodate CPU mining, GPU mining, and ASIC mining at the same time.
So my question is, why did coins which were focused on being the next Litecoin (which is essentially what these coins are/were) end up failing?
Litecoin had a similar role from 2012-2014 when it was able to carve out a niche for itself as a GPU-resistant coin when Bitcoin was dominated by GPUs and then as an ASIC-resistant coin when Bitcoin was dominated by ASICs. Once Litecoin's scrypt algorithm had its own GPU miners and then ASICs developed for it, you would think that coins like Quark and Myriadcoin would fill in the gap that was left behind.
A quick look at Myriadcoin's market cap on CMC shows that it is at $40,000, while Quark is looking a bit better at $600,000. However, that's still a huge drop compared with their ATHs ($700,000 and $50 million respectively).
A lot of people have said that when scrypt ASICs were developed, Litecoin should have changed their algorithm to stay one step ahead. But the failure of coins like Quark, Myriadcoin, and Saffroncoin shows that this might not have been the case.
(Also, I understand that Darkcoin/DASH with its X11 algorithm is apparently based on Quark's algorithm and also uses a mix of different algorithms rolled into one but DRK/DASH doesn't count since its main selling point is anonymity and thus it occupies a completely different and unrelated niche.)
So my question is, why did coins which were focused on being the next Litecoin (which is essentially what these coins are/were) end up failing?
Litecoin had a similar role from 2012-2014 when it was able to carve out a niche for itself as a GPU-resistant coin when Bitcoin was dominated by GPUs and then as an ASIC-resistant coin when Bitcoin was dominated by ASICs. Once Litecoin's scrypt algorithm had its own GPU miners and then ASICs developed for it, you would think that coins like Quark and Myriadcoin would fill in the gap that was left behind.
A quick look at Myriadcoin's market cap on CMC shows that it is at $40,000, while Quark is looking a bit better at $600,000. However, that's still a huge drop compared with their ATHs ($700,000 and $50 million respectively).
A lot of people have said that when scrypt ASICs were developed, Litecoin should have changed their algorithm to stay one step ahead. But the failure of coins like Quark, Myriadcoin, and Saffroncoin shows that this might not have been the case.
(Also, I understand that Darkcoin/DASH with its X11 algorithm is apparently based on Quark's algorithm and also uses a mix of different algorithms rolled into one but DRK/DASH doesn't count since its main selling point is anonymity and thus it occupies a completely different and unrelated niche.)
The ATH of Quark was due to a bunch of people "having" to buy in to try to kill it afterwards.
of course that all failed so all things being equal take that "attack" vector out and Quark has had a nice steady rise.
all that occurred was it got a bunch of attention, it is now a permanent member of the cryptocurrency of this planet.
Scams of course will come and go - a real goo indication of what is a "real" crypto was what was recently purchased when "someone" recently broadly had "buy in" to alts.
June 15, 2015, 05:29:12 AM
lol "failed" -
{said on obscure forum}
meanwhile back in the real world...
comments:
Myriad was hurt by not having an EQ and a few other economic aspects but it was a great test.
{said on obscure forum}
meanwhile back in the real world...
comments:
Myriad was hurt by not having an EQ and a few other economic aspects but it was a great test.
June 13, 2015, 12:20:30 PM
I think it due to them being so complex. Sometimes it just pays to keep it simple.
June 13, 2015, 09:15:00 AM
The main niche for such coins is probably as botnet coins, things that botnets can mine.
Ordinary home users cannot really do well with such coins because unlike the botnet operators they have to pay for their equipment and electricity.
-MarkM-
Ordinary home users cannot really do well with such coins because unlike the botnet operators they have to pay for their equipment and electricity.
-MarkM-
June 13, 2015, 08:11:47 AM
The alt scene was completely different when LTC was launched. In fact, there barely was an alt scene. A different algo/ASIC resistance isn't enough to create a successful coin anymore. Why should investors/traders/end users of the coin care what algorithm is used for POW? Just because GPU miners want to mine, doesn't mean that the market is going to magically create a demand for a GPU only coin.
June 13, 2015, 07:42:23 AM
I wouldn't call Myriadcoin a failure at all.... when someone asks me about coins that I thought were/are badass based on what they brought to the table, Myriadcoin is deffinitally in the top 5. Their multi algo approach is, in my opinion, the only way to make PoW coins viable for the long term.
June 12, 2015, 10:39:39 PM
I don't think that myriadcoin has failed, and it certainly doesn't pretend to be ASIC resistant, since two its algos are mined by ASICs. Yes, it has got a pretty low "market cap", but it also has more followers and services than a lot of other larger cap coins.
I also don't agree with the premise that all GPU only coins have failed. With vertcoin's major pump over the last few weeks, it was back in the top 10 of market cap I think, at least briefly, and it's still at #15 with a $3.5M number.
I also don't agree with the premise that all GPU only coins have failed. With vertcoin's major pump over the last few weeks, it was back in the top 10 of market cap I think, at least briefly, and it's still at #15 with a $3.5M number.
June 12, 2015, 08:19:44 PM
There are coins like Quark that use a mix of different algorithms and coins like Myriadcoin and Saffroncoin that use a chain with multiple algorithms. Myriadcoin and its clones are probably better described as being ASIC-tolerant since its co-existing PoW systems are able to accommodate CPU mining, GPU mining, and ASIC mining at the same time.
So my question is, why did coins which were focused on being the next Litecoin (which is essentially what these coins are/were) end up failing?
Litecoin had a similar role from 2012-2014 when it was able to carve out a niche for itself as a GPU-resistant coin when Bitcoin was dominated by GPUs and then as an ASIC-resistant coin when Bitcoin was dominated by ASICs. Once Litecoin's scrypt algorithm had its own GPU miners and then ASICs developed for it, you would think that coins like Quark and Myriadcoin would fill in the gap that was left behind.
A quick look at Myriadcoin's market cap on CMC shows that it is at $40,000, while Quark is looking a bit better at $600,000. However, that's still a huge drop compared with their ATHs ($700,000 and $50 million respectively).
A lot of people have said that when scrypt ASICs were developed, Litecoin should have changed their algorithm to stay one step ahead. But the failure of coins like Quark, Myriadcoin, and Saffroncoin shows that this might not have been the case.
(Also, I understand that Darkcoin/DASH with its X11 algorithm is apparently based on Quark's algorithm and also uses a mix of different algorithms rolled into one but DRK/DASH doesn't count since its main selling point is anonymity and thus it occupies a completely different and unrelated niche.)
So my question is, why did coins which were focused on being the next Litecoin (which is essentially what these coins are/were) end up failing?
Litecoin had a similar role from 2012-2014 when it was able to carve out a niche for itself as a GPU-resistant coin when Bitcoin was dominated by GPUs and then as an ASIC-resistant coin when Bitcoin was dominated by ASICs. Once Litecoin's scrypt algorithm had its own GPU miners and then ASICs developed for it, you would think that coins like Quark and Myriadcoin would fill in the gap that was left behind.
A quick look at Myriadcoin's market cap on CMC shows that it is at $40,000, while Quark is looking a bit better at $600,000. However, that's still a huge drop compared with their ATHs ($700,000 and $50 million respectively).
A lot of people have said that when scrypt ASICs were developed, Litecoin should have changed their algorithm to stay one step ahead. But the failure of coins like Quark, Myriadcoin, and Saffroncoin shows that this might not have been the case.
(Also, I understand that Darkcoin/DASH with its X11 algorithm is apparently based on Quark's algorithm and also uses a mix of different algorithms rolled into one but DRK/DASH doesn't count since its main selling point is anonymity and thus it occupies a completely different and unrelated niche.)
Jump to: