For the love of god people, chaining 11 ASIC by design algos does not make it ASIC resistant, it makes it ASIC friendly.
The announced 150-250MHS scrypt ASICs are not that good, they don't have x1000 boost because scrypt *IS* ASIC resistant by design and they won't impact scrypt coins as much as the SHA256 ASICs.
Forking your scrypt coins to x11 to be ASIC resistant is just plain retarded, next year if KNC deems it profitable they'll launch x11 ASIC with x1000 boost making the whole matter even worse if you were to just stick with scrypt, then what, another fork to some other largely untested chained algo?
It sucks but that's life.
Topic: Will X11 save us from the ASIC vultures? (Read 3552 times)
another ad for X11 ? these are getting tiring..
they ripped off Quark and called it X11 so fucking what.. the end
they ripped off Quark and called it X11 so fucking what.. the end
I know you want to advertise Darkcoin, but you need to keep it real. More hashing functions doesn't mean more secure. Quark is still the king of multiple hashing imo.
Darkcoin in terms of hashing functions it is a combination of Quark's 6 hashing functions and Qubit-coin's 5 hashing functions, so in total Darkcoin has 11. Five of Quark's hashing functions (Blake, Grøstl, JH, Keccak and Skein) were the finalists of the NIST competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST_hash_function_competition
Quark is using 9 rounds of hashing: while using 6 rounds from Blake, Blue Midnight Wish, Grøstl, JH, Keccak and Skein it adds 3 more rounds of hashing randomly: so the computer doesn't know whether it will be Keccak or Grøstl or Blake. And that's one of the uniqiue beauties of Quark. Unfortunately, Darkcoin or Qubitcoin don't do that: the computer remains certain about which hashing function will be used.
Another advantage of Quark might be, Darkcoin's block generation time is 2.5minutes (150seconds), while Quark is 30 seconds. Which means that Quarks algorithm with an element of randomness (unpredictability) will have to be cracked in 30 seconds to create a double-spend fork, while for Darkcoin this window of opportunity for the attacker is 5 timeslonger: 150 seconds with no element of randomness. If you take all these factors into account, Quark is still the most secure - it's not only about the number of hashing functions."
I would think it may be more difficult to design a ASIC with more hashing functions than fewer. While Quark has 9 rounds, there are only 6 functions. There are three random rounds (3, 6, 9). After the 2nd, 5th and 8th round, one bit is checked in the 512 bit hash as it has been calculated thus far. If that bit is on, then one particular hash function will be used. If it is off, then another hash is used. It is a basic if else statement. It is a one of the types of statements common to all the Quark hash functions. Checking that bit is easier than programming an extra hash function. If the Quark or the X11 hash functions can be put into an ASIC, then handling the randomness will not be a problem. While the ASIC doesn't know what Quark hashes will be used for a particular block, it will figure it out along the way just as a desktop client or android wallet can do in C++ or Java.
This is a fantastic counterpoint. Do you have a reference to where this is decided in the code . . so that I might feel comfortable requoting you?
I know you want to advertise Darkcoin, but you need to keep it real. More hashing functions doesn't mean more secure. Quark is still the king of multiple hashing imo.
Darkcoin in terms of hashing functions it is a combination of Quark's 6 hashing functions and Qubit-coin's 5 hashing functions, so in total Darkcoin has 11. Five of Quark's hashing functions (Blake, Grøstl, JH, Keccak and Skein) were the finalists of the NIST competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST_hash_function_competition
Quark is using 9 rounds of hashing: while using 6 rounds from Blake, Blue Midnight Wish, Grøstl, JH, Keccak and Skein it adds 3 more rounds of hashing randomly: so the computer doesn't know whether it will be Keccak or Grøstl or Blake. And that's one of the uniqiue beauties of Quark. Unfortunately, Darkcoin or Qubitcoin don't do that: the computer remains certain about which hashing function will be used.
Another advantage of Quark might be, Darkcoin's block generation time is 2.5minutes (150seconds), while Quark is 30 seconds. Which means that Quarks algorithm with an element of randomness (unpredictability) will have to be cracked in 30 seconds to create a double-spend fork, while for Darkcoin this window of opportunity for the attacker is 5 timeslonger: 150 seconds with no element of randomness. If you take all these factors into account, Quark is still the most secure - it's not only about the number of hashing functions."
I would think it may be more difficult to design a ASIC with more hashing functions than fewer. While Quark has 9 rounds, there are only 6 functions. There are three random rounds (3, 6, 9). After the 2nd, 5th and 8th round, one bit is checked in the 512 bit hash as it has been calculated thus far. If that bit is on, then one particular hash function will be used. If it is off, then another hash is used. It is a basic if else statement. It is a one of the types of statements common to all the Quark hash functions. Checking that bit is easier than programming an extra hash function. If the Quark or the X11 hash functions can be put into an ASIC, then handling the randomness will not be a problem. While the ASIC doesn't know what Quark hashes will be used for a particular block, it will figure it out along the way just as a desktop client or android wallet can do in C++ or Java.
how about CGA cryptographic anomaly's mathematics style? 
They don't care, they just want to scam more money using their GPUs regardless of how worthless the resulting crapcoins are to actual users.
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
You are right, lol. jk.
They don't care, they just want to scam more money using their GPUs regardless of how worthless the resulting crapcoins are to actual users.
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
x11 is actually ASIC friendly, you just need one that can do all 11 algos and get x1000 speed-up. Sure those ASIC wont come this or perhaps next year, but once it's profitable to do so, their job would be much easier than scrypt ASIC.
After all the obvious propaganda against it by some well known members,
I'm sure, YES IT WILL!
And the plan to hardfork Litecoin and DOGE to X11 is just great.
I can't wait to see some action.
I'm sure, YES IT WILL!
And the plan to hardfork Litecoin and DOGE to X11 is just great.
I can't wait to see some action.
And if I see it coming - there is a new threat on the horizons for plain Scrypt:
Multi Coin Hashing
I just heard about it today and would be grateful to be enlightened wether it's possible.
Trying the same hashes for multiple coins.
You can piss away your fucking blockchain if this works and got ASICs coming your way.
Multi Coin Hashing
I just heard about it today and would be grateful to be enlightened wether it's possible.
Trying the same hashes for multiple coins.
You can piss away your fucking blockchain if this works and got ASICs coming your way.
x11 is a petty good algo, also scrypt-jane. which to choose?
PoH 
x11 is a petty good algo, also scrypt-jane. which to choose?
Lets find an agency. How about the BSA - the Bolockchain Security Agency
Bwaha was a typo - decided to leave it - security - you already suck at arguments.
A heroes member sucking at security. Where were you, when all the Bitcoins got stolen.
But, but, but I'm marc m...
Bwaha was a typo - decided to leave it - security - you already suck at arguments.
A heroes member sucking at security. Where were you, when all the Bitcoins got stolen.
But, but, but I'm marc m...
Being resistant to being secured is not a feature for a blockchain, it is a bug.
Blockchains need to be secured.
Making them harder to secure, and, especially, making them easier for botnets and meme-fans and such to attack, is not a feature at all it is an idiotic design-flaw.
It is like designing roads that horse-and-buggy can traverse but automobile cannot in order to try to keep buggy-whip makers in business.
Utter idiocy.
-MarkM-
Blockchains need to be secured.
Making them harder to secure, and, especially, making them easier for botnets and meme-fans and such to attack, is not a feature at all it is an idiotic design-flaw.
It is like designing roads that horse-and-buggy can traverse but automobile cannot in order to try to keep buggy-whip makers in business.
Utter idiocy.
-MarkM-
Guys, summer is coming. I'm doing HIRO (HIC) atm and I repeatedly check my rigs for work status.
I'm sensing they are idle, just to find out they are full on.
This, and more of it please!
I'm sensing they are idle, just to find out they are full on.
This, and more of it please!
x11 is groestl + quark it does 3 times better on gpu than on cpu (as groestl standolone does too) but considering cost and power it's pretty good ... just not the breakthrough it is hyped to be.
There are several, like Primecoin and Riecoin.
And my Cuckoo Cycle proof-of-work, which is not used by any coin.
and myriad which is resitant by embracing them.
I don't think any coin so far is ASIC resistant.
There are several, like Primecoin and Riecoin.
And my Cuckoo Cycle proof-of-work, which is not used by any coin.
and myriad which is resitant by embracing them.
I don't think any coin so far is ASIC resistant.
There are several, like Primecoin and Riecoin.
And my Cuckoo Cycle proof-of-work, which is not used by any coin.
I don't think any coin so far is ASIC resistant.
EDIT The devs are looking into it with EMC2. But there are disadvantages with X11, especially the botnet issue.
In terms of ASIC resistance, no one can garuntee something will never have ASICs forever.
In terms of ASIC resistance, no one can garuntee something will never have ASICs forever.
Jump to: