Someone (C++ skilled) did private optimized miner a few days ago, he got 74H/s for i5 haswell. He pointed that mining code was very unoptimized and he did essential improvements for yourself. So, high H/S is possible yet.
Can the dev's core review code for that?
Let me explain a bit about how open source works. Anyone is free to contribute. The lead developer and core team reviews the proposed changes and either adopts them or not. There is at least one of the core team who does work on optimization, and posted some optimizations. I would not be surprised if he develops further optimizations as well.
So if you have proposed code changes, please submit them. Some sort of statement -- backed up by zero evidence -- about a unicorn miner that someone has is not helpful. Every altcoin has these
"Kaiser Soze" miners who supposedly have much faster mining code than everybody else. Sometimes it's true and sometimes it isn't. We can't force anyone to contribute their code.
The PoW algorithm needs to be highly optimized from public launch.
Also IMHO, closed source on the PoW algorithm would be best until several weeks of ramp up is complete so clones are too far behind.
Open source is a very effective paradigm for refining (because of the Linus law, "given enough eyeballs, every bug or refinement is shallow"), but it is not as effective at innovation because innovation requires pride+ownership (in one's work), investment of effort, and most of all leadership. Eric Raymond (the creator of the term "open source") opened a discussion on this last year (see the comments):
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4946 (Adobe in cloud-cuckoo land)
For example, how do you plan to decentralize pools? You will need some innovative leadership on an algorithm for that, lest you end up same as Bitcoin with two pools controlling greater than 50% of the network hash power.
Ditto making mining easy enough for grandma to do. Etc.
Does anyone know of any innovative project (created many new killer features) that was created by open source (and not open sourced after those innovative features were completed)?
Btw, Russians are very astute at algorithmic optimization:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4901 (National styles in hacking)
Unfortunately, I fear you're preaching to deaf ears. I don't believe many of the folks here understand the importance of the features you're speaking of. I've stated more than once upthread that mining should be so easy grandma can do it. Pool sizes need to be limited or pools made unnecessary altogether. Transaction fees need to disappear. A fixed money supply won't work long term. I've been saying it. Few listen.
Anonymint, a truly anonymous cpu-only-forever coin would be great, but such features are useless if the community can't even create a currency capable of sustaining itself, let alone remaining decentralized. "One foot before the other" I suppose is what I'm trying to say.
