Topic: Why I say X11 and SHA3 are not ASIC resistent ? - page 3. (Read 10209 times)
I think that term "ASIC hostile" is more adequate at this conditions.
There will eventually be ASICs for any mined algorithm which gains popularity. What this does is effectively act as a delay to help coins mature. It would take 8-12 months at least for asics to be developed for x11, maybe longer because it is dependent on economics. By that time those early adopter currencies with x11 will benefit from the asics, because ASICs benefit mature coins, and eventually the software technology would be developed for the next generation. There is a cycle to this.
Nothing is ASIC proof. Nothing. Resistant means it would take a new R&D effort to develop asics, and that literally can take several months. At which time a coins can mature who are early adopters of the tech.
There is definitely a life cycle here, and one we must recognize, and the life cycle is not entirely bad.
Nothing is ASIC proof. Nothing. Resistant means it would take a new R&D effort to develop asics, and that literally can take several months. At which time a coins can mature who are early adopters of the tech.
There is definitely a life cycle here, and one we must recognize, and the life cycle is not entirely bad.
Second definition for resistance from mw:
re·sis·tance, effort made to stop or to fight against someone or something
Where does it say its guaranteed and in the future will remain? I feel like we are just arguing over the definition of the word. I think it is safe to say that LTC is no longer asic resistant unless they announce they are making an EFFORT to change.
re·sis·tance, effort made to stop or to fight against someone or something
Where does it say its guaranteed and in the future will remain? I feel like we are just arguing over the definition of the word. I think it is safe to say that LTC is no longer asic resistant unless they announce they are making an EFFORT to change.
Um children-
its not about the individual algo being ASIC resistant as thats basically impossible .
cPoW (of which x11 is)
is about two primary vectors:
1. A mix of algos (for complexity)
and
2. distribution time.
so no x11 is not ASIC resistant if its put into a currency with 100 years of primary distribution , but with a moderate to fast distribution is.
its not about the individual algo being ASIC resistant as thats basically impossible .
cPoW (of which x11 is)
is about two primary vectors:
1. A mix of algos (for complexity)
and
2. distribution time.
so no x11 is not ASIC resistant if its put into a currency with 100 years of primary distribution , but
X11 and SHA3 ARE ASIC resistant NOT ASIC proof
the end.
the end.
What he said ^
Thank you for correcting.
You know how when you buy a watch it isn't waterproof, it's water resistant. It's the same as that, there is no guarantee. Your stating what everyone knows.
+1 X11 and SHA3 ARE ASIC resistant NOT ASIC proof
the end.
the end.
What he said ^
X11 and SHA3 ARE ASIC resistant NOT ASIC proof
the end.
the end.
But why even bother to build such ASICs at all? There are more different companies making SHA256 ASICs so SHA256 is less centralised.
Creating a new algorithm just moves you back toward more centralisation because it lowers the number of providers providing specialised hardware.
-MarkM-
Creating a new algorithm just moves you back toward more centralisation because it lowers the number of providers providing specialised hardware.
-MarkM-
I couldn't AGREE more with you, still finding the answer.....WHY WHY WHY ?
But why even bother to build such ASICs at all? There are more different companies making SHA256 ASICs so SHA256 is less centralised.
Creating a new algorithm just moves you back toward more centralisation because it lowers the number of providers providing specialised hardware.
-MarkM-
Creating a new algorithm just moves you back toward more centralisation because it lowers the number of providers providing specialised hardware.
-MarkM-
Maybe look up the word resistant, maybe it will help.
I can't figure out your agenda, copy pasting the same thing all day long on every threads concerning X11.
You may havepurposely missed my answer :
You may have
Quote
Each algorithm in X11 may individually be non resistant but it is not the case when they are combined. X11 is a set of hash functions and SHA3 is a hash function, apples and oranges.
Can you proof ? do you have theories back up your claim ?
Do YOU have a proof to back up your claim ? All I see is an article about SHA3 implementation what about the hardware implementation of a set of functions ...
Please answer the question, don't try to change the topic.
My first answer is pretty clear... You go around saying things you don't seem to understand and you ask me for proof when you provide none.
It is going to be funny, you answer what ? you claim when they are combined, it will be ASIC resistant. I ask you why ASIC resistant when they combine together ? just answer the claim that you state, I am willing to follow your theory if you have proof.
Don't forget power requirements of having 11 chips always turned on.
You know how when you buy a watch it isn't waterproof, it's water resistant. It's the same as that, there is no guarantee. Your stating what everyone knows.
So, this is my conclusion, X11 and SHA3 is not ASIC resistant, it just because of the price for producing is expensive like SHA256 in Bitcoin and Scrypt in Litecoin in the beginning. But when companies decided to CREATE ASIC for X11 and SHA3, they will able to do if they are willing to pay huge development cost. and X11 and SHA3 coins will repeat step Bitcoin and Litecoin again. Nothing new, it is just cycle.
You know how when you buy a watch it isn't waterproof, it's water resistant. It's the same as that, there is no guarantee. Your stating what everyone knows.
Don't forget power requirements of having 11 chips always turned on.
I can't figure out your agenda, copy pasting the same thing all day long on every threads concerning X11.
You may havepurposely missed my answer :
You may have
Quote
Each algorithm in X11 may individually be non resistant but it is not the case when they are combined. X11 is a set of hash functions and SHA3 is a hash function, apples and oranges.
Can you proof ? do you have theories back up your claim ?
Do YOU have a proof to back up your claim ? All I see is an article about SHA3 implementation what about the hardware implementation of a set of functions ...
Please answer the question, don't try to change the topic.
My first answer is pretty clear... You go around saying things you don't seem to understand and you ask me for proof when you provide none.
It is going to be funny, you answer what ? you claim when they are combined, it will be ASIC resistant. I ask you why ASIC resistant when they combine together ? just answer the claim that you state, I am willing to follow your theory if you have proof.
I can't figure out your agenda, copy pasting the same thing all day long on every threads concerning X11.
You may havepurposely missed my answer :
You may have
Quote
Each algorithm in X11 may individually be non resistant but it is not the case when they are combined. X11 is a set of hash functions and SHA3 is a hash function, apples and oranges.
Can you proof ? do you have theories back up your claim ?
Do YOU have a proof to back up your claim ? All I see is an article about SHA3 implementation what about the hardware implementation of a set of functions ...
Please answer the question, don't try to change the topic.
My first answer is pretty clear... You go around saying things you don't seem to understand and you ask me for proof when you provide none.
It is going to be funny, you answer what ? you claim when they are combined, it will be ASIC resistant. I ask you why ASIC resistant when they combine together ? just answer the claim that you state, I am willing to follow your theory if you have proof.
I can't figure out your agenda, copy pasting the same thing all day long on every threads concerning X11.
You may havepurposely missed my answer :
You may have
Quote
Each algorithm in X11 may individually be non resistant but it is not the case when they are combined. X11 is a set of hash functions and SHA3 is a hash function, apples and oranges.
Can you proof ? do you have theories back up your claim ?
Do YOU have a proof to back up your claim ? All I see is an article about SHA3 implementation what about the hardware implementation of a set of functions ...
Please answer the question, don't try to change the topic.
My first answer is pretty clear... You go around saying things you don't seem to understand and you ask me for proof when you provide none.
I likey.. the streets
Again, my point is STOP using ASIC resistant word if your coins using x11 or SHA3. it is false advertising.
It's more ASIC resistant than BTC or LTC are/were.
Facts:
- A currency needs high liquidity to be a valid currency
- High market penetration gives you high liquidity
- ASICs give you CRAP for market penetration.
- Dogecoin would have gone nowhere and had 0 market pentration as Sha256.
If an ASIC is to exist at all for a currency, it is not healthy for it to occur till at least the first halving or 50% of it being mined in order to somewhat maximize market penetration.
The current Darkcoin algorithm at least delays ASIC until the coin has substantial value due to cost of creating them for 11 algos.
- A currency needs high liquidity to be a valid currency
- High market penetration gives you high liquidity
- ASICs give you CRAP for market penetration.
- Dogecoin would have gone nowhere and had 0 market pentration as Sha256.
If an ASIC is to exist at all for a currency, it is not healthy for it to occur till at least the first halving or 50% of it being mined in order to somewhat maximize market penetration.
The current Darkcoin algorithm at least delays ASIC until the coin has substantial value due to cost of creating them for 11 algos.
I got your point, but what is the different between x11 coins and Bitcoin if you said as above ?
Again, my point is STOP using ASIC resistant word if your coins using x11 or SHA3. it is false advertising.
Jump to: