Is the PoW change code final, can we start working on pool/miner updates?
i am not sure but It is merged, so it should be final.
Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 329. (Read 3314316 times)
Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance. I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets. The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".
This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.
I believe the question at the heart of this idea is clear: Is it desirable to stick to the original 1 CPU 1 vote vision? And if so, is it FEASIBLE to continue to enforce that vision? With ASICs already in the wild it is a very valid set of questions.
If the answer to either is NO, then arguably we should move towards not only allowing ASIC development, but making it as easy as possible.
Disclaimer - I have been fairly firmly in the "original vision" camp for a long time. But over the years I have grown more amenable to considering other options.
Yea I agree. If you cant beat them, join them. But only when you are sure that you can not beat them. We should try this plan to routinely alter the proof of work and see how that goes first.
To ASIC or not to ASIC the question is now ...
To give major part of coin emission to a small group of large capital investors or to give a little bit to every one (the people) the question is now ...
ASIC folks, go fork ya'selves
To give major part of coin emission to a small group of large capital investors or to give a little bit to every one (the people) the question is now ...
ASIC folks, go fork ya'selves
I think othe makes a good point in the GitHub discussion, re: botnets and hobbyists.
I think another point to consider is whether or not Monero is going to abandon its six month hard fork cycle at some point. It was my impression that over the next year or three the protocol would mature, and the constant hard forks/upgrades would be phased out. If you're planning on forking constantly to try and evade silicon this becomes impossible, and you impose constant upgrades on users, exchanges, services, etc.
To ASIC or not to ASIC the question is now ...
To give major part of coin emission to a small group of large capital investors or to give a little bit to every one (the people) the question is now ...
ASIC folks, go fork ya'selves
To give major part of coin emission to a small group of large capital investors or to give a little bit to every one (the people) the question is now ...
ASIC folks, go fork ya'selves
Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance. I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets. The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".
This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.
A clear difference here is cost to entry.
Botnet owner = 0 (aside some small costs and ofc the initial effort)
ASIC owner = financial investment, commitment
I think one of these clearly cares more about the coin health that the other.
Also I'm reminded of an old description of venture capitalism I was once told. That was "Buy it for a pound, sell it for 2 pounds"
So in the hacker, botnet example its buy it for free. Where is their sell limit then? erk
ASICs farms are for the privileged, very few people can afford to buy a load of them to run them in on an industrial scale even then manufacturers mine the shit out of it with their latest toys before releasing it to the public, how is that serving anyone let alone decentralization?
I was sure we wouldn't see < 0.027, however that looks unlikely now with a phat 3K XMR order sitting at 0.028.
I really expected 0.03 (now) trading slowly up to 0.05 over the next few months to bring us inline for 1Kusd XMR.
I guess I was overly optimistic...
Looking bearish rn.
I really expected 0.03 (now) trading slowly up to 0.05 over the next few months to bring us inline for 1Kusd XMR.
I guess I was overly optimistic...
Looking bearish rn.
You are the eternal optimist - which, by the way, is not a bad thing.
Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance. I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets. The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".
This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.
A clear difference here is cost to entry.
Botnet owner = 0 (aside some small costs and ofc the initial effort)
ASIC owner = financial investment, commitment
I think one of these clearly cares more about the coin health that the other.
Also I'm reminded of an old description of venture capitalism I was once told. That was "Buy it for a pound, sell it for 2 pounds"
So in the hacker, botnet example its buy it for free. Where is their sell limit then? erk
Yes, there is an argument that ASICS lead to price stability, if not upward pressure.
Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance. I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets. The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".
This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.
A clear difference here is cost to entry.
Botnet owner = 0 (aside some small costs and ofc the initial effort)
ASIC owner = financial investment, commitment
I think one of these clearly cares more about the coin health that the other.
Also I'm reminded of an old description of venture capitalism I was once told. That was "Buy it for a pound, sell it for 2 pounds"
So in the hacker, botnet example its buy it for free. Where is their sell limit then? erk
I was sure we wouldn't see < 0.027, however that looks unlikely now with a phat 3K XMR order sitting at 0.028.
I really expected 0.03 (now) trading slowly up to 0.05 over the next few months to bring us inline for 1Kusd XMR.
I guess I was overly optimistic...
Looking bearish rn.
I really expected 0.03 (now) trading slowly up to 0.05 over the next few months to bring us inline for 1Kusd XMR.
I guess I was overly optimistic...
Looking bearish rn.
Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance. I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets. The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".
This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.
I believe the question at the heart of this idea is clear: Is it desirable to stick to the original 1 CPU 1 vote vision? And if so, is it FEASIBLE to continue to enforce that vision? With ASICs already in the wild it is a very valid set of questions.
If the answer to either is NO, then arguably we should move towards not only allowing ASIC development, but making it as easy as possible.
Disclaimer - I have been fairly firmly in the "original vision" camp for a long time. But over the years I have grown more amenable to considering other options.
If ASICs are readily available from several manufacturers/wholesalers/retailers at reasonable prices like CPUs and GPUs are I don't see why Monero shouldn't embrace them, but as of now that is not the case.
I seem to fall in this camp. I do believe the general argument of the potential efficiency and stability ASICs could bring to a network is of merit - and at the very least worth discussing. But yes - current price point and the current state of centralized control of manufacturing and retail make me believe now is just not the time for Monero to adopt ASICs
Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
I'll have to read that, thanks for posting. I rarely disagree with Smooth but I cannot conceive of an argument that could sway my opinion on opposing ASIC's.
I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance. I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets. The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".
This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.
I believe the question at the heart of this idea is clear: Is it desirable to stick to the original 1 CPU 1 vote vision? And if so, is it FEASIBLE to continue to enforce that vision? With ASICs already in the wild it is a very valid set of questions.
If the answer to either is NO, then arguably we should move towards not only allowing ASIC development, but making it as easy as possible.
Disclaimer - I have been fairly firmly in the "original vision" camp for a long time. But over the years I have grown more amenable to considering other options.
This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.
I believe the question at the heart of this idea is clear: Is it desirable to stick to the original 1 CPU 1 vote vision? And if so, is it FEASIBLE to continue to enforce that vision? With ASICs already in the wild it is a very valid set of questions.
If the answer to either is NO, then arguably we should move towards not only allowing ASIC development, but making it as easy as possible.
Disclaimer - I have been fairly firmly in the "original vision" camp for a long time. But over the years I have grown more amenable to considering other options.
That is true, we would lose alot of security the botnets provide. Also by providing a somewhat legitimate use XMR is in a way providing a service, if botnets could not mine it then they would be monetized in a more destructive manner I'm sure. I don't know if anyone else has noticed but you just don't seem to hear about the massive takedowns of yesteryear and I wouldn't doubt Monero is no small part because of that. I think we can all agree Botnets are going no where and this is the least damaging use they are put on.
I think the 1 cpu one vote is a trojan argument and it has been gone for a long time already. I'm betting alot of lines are going to be drawn by where the bags lay. Those that are invested in these ASIC's are surly going to try to keep them on Monero.
This is something I hadn't considered as if it will become inevitable (?) then this should be considered.
Quote
By ASIC-friendly, I mean something that not only can reasonably be implemented in an ASIC, but which minimizes barriers to creating ASICs, minimizes their costs, facilitates the development of a wide range of compatible hardware at attractive price points, and minimizes opportunities for clever proprietary advantages. By doing so we may maximize the likelihood of a competitive ASIC market developing and minimize the degree of (temporarily or sustained) monopolization. This could possibly be achieved by using a simple, well-known, and well understood algorithm such as SHA3.
But no matter what, we should fork away from these current ASIC's, rewarding them is not a good idea.
Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance. I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets. The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".
This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.
I believe the question at the heart of this idea is clear: Is it desirable to stick to the original 1 CPU 1 vote vision? And if so, is it FEASIBLE to continue to enforce that vision? With ASICs already in the wild it is a very valid set of questions.
If the answer to either is NO, then arguably we should move towards not only allowing ASIC development, but making it as easy as possible.
Disclaimer - I have been fairly firmly in the "original vision" camp for a long time. But over the years I have grown more amenable to considering other options.
If ASICs are readily available from several manufacturers/wholesalers/retailers at reasonable prices like CPUs and GPUs are I don't see why Monero shouldn't embrace them, but as of now that is not the case.
Noob question, what is the benefit for ASIC mining and how is it different to the cryptonote?
ASIC stands for Application specific integrated circuit. It is a absolutely targeted single use processor. Unlike a CPU or GPU which are designed to do lots of kinds of computations well an ASIC is designed to do a SINGLE thing as well as possible. They are expensive to produce.
Cryptonote mining is designed to be ASIC resistant. But I suppose building an ASIC resistant algorithm is like building an unpick-able lock.
Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance. I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets. The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".
This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.
I believe the question at the heart of this idea is clear: Is it desirable to stick to the original 1 CPU 1 vote vision? And if so, is it FEASIBLE to continue to enforce that vision? With ASICs already in the wild it is a very valid set of questions.
If the answer to either is NO, then arguably we should move towards not only allowing ASIC development, but making it as easy as possible.
Disclaimer - I have been fairly firmly in the "original vision" camp for a long time. But over the years I have grown more amenable to considering other options.
If ASICs are readily available from several manufacturers/wholesalers/retailers at reasonable prices like CPUs and GPUs are I don't see why Monero shouldn't embrace them, but as of now that is not the case.
Noob question, what is the benefit for ASIC mining and how is it different to the cryptonote?
Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance. I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets. The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".
This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.
I believe the question at the heart of this idea is clear: Is it desirable to stick to the original 1 CPU 1 vote vision? And if so, is it FEASIBLE to continue to enforce that vision? With ASICs already in the wild it is a very valid set of questions.
If the answer to either is NO, then arguably we should move towards not only allowing ASIC development, but making it as easy as possible.
Disclaimer - I have been fairly firmly in the "original vision" camp for a long time. But over the years I have grown more amenable to considering other options.
If ASICs are readily available from several manufacturers/wholesalers/retailers at reasonable prices like CPUs and GPUs are I don't see why Monero shouldn't embrace them, but as of now that is not the case.
Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
I am glad to see what appears to be a little bit of balance. I understand the ideal of one CPU one vote, but many folks who would argue against ASICs will also argue in defense of botnets. The botnet defense usually goes like: "They are securing the network, and they are incentivized not to wreck it by their financial stake".
This exact same argument can be used for ASICs.
I believe the question at the heart of this idea is clear: Is it desirable to stick to the original 1 CPU 1 vote vision? And if so, is it FEASIBLE to continue to enforce that vision? With ASICs already in the wild it is a very valid set of questions.
If the answer to either is NO, then arguably we should move towards not only allowing ASIC development, but making it as easy as possible.
Disclaimer - I have been fairly firmly in the "original vision" camp for a long time. But over the years I have grown more amenable to considering other options.
Interesting GitHub discussion, initiated by smooth, as to whether Monero should begin to embrace ASICS instead of opposing them. Raises some interesting questions.
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3387#issuecomment-372283631
Imagine if a similar proportion of the daily liquidity in usd was dumped into FX markets over a couple of months. That would amount to roughly 700bn. Nuclear winter? Perhaps literally so.
Just wait until all the people trading in traditional financial markets are kids who cut their teeth on crypto. What would have caused panic, mass hystaria, and accusations of russion infiltration today will instead cause yawns, shrugs and quiet resigned sips of coffee.
By the time all the kid who cut their teeth on crypto grow up - crypto will have subsumed the traditional markets.
Well it will be a hybrid. Traditional assets will migrate onto blockchain but there will still be securities, bonds, derivatives contracts and equities ect... Things that are more traditional that they aren't generally trading right now.
LOL
https://youtu.be/g6iDZspbRMg?t=677
Quote
I couldn't come up with a dumber name than deeponion but it just couldn't be done - John Oliver
https://youtu.be/g6iDZspbRMg?t=677
Your link is broken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6iDZspbRMg @11:17
Oh sorry I think I mislead you. I think it's just my vpn putting me out of region for that channel. I watched it though. I definitely lold pretty hard at the jab at deep onion.
Yep, same. had to Americanize to view it.
-what an annoying little man!
Quote
Your link is broken.
Quote
Oh sorry I think I mislead you. I think it's just my vpn putting me out of region for that channel. I watched it though. I definitely lold pretty hard at the jab at deep onion.
Fixed.
Link got changed, I'm not sure why. I think maybe google shenanigans when copying links.
Reading this right now.
http://vu.hn/bitcoin%20origins.html#abstract
Imagine if a similar proportion of the daily liquidity in usd was dumped into FX markets over a couple of months. That would amount to roughly 700bn. Nuclear winter? Perhaps literally so.
Just wait until all the people trading in traditional financial markets are kids who cut their teeth on crypto. What would have caused panic, mass hystaria, and accusations of russion infiltration today will instead cause yawns, shrugs and quiet resigned sips of coffee.
By the time all the kid who cut their teeth on crypto grow up - crypto will have subsumed the traditional markets.
Well it will be a hybrid. Traditional assets will migrate onto blockchain but there will still be securities, bonds, derivatives contracts and equities ect... Things that are more traditional that they aren't generally trading right now.
LOL
https://youtu.be/g6iDZspbRMg?t=677
Quote
I couldn't come up with a dumber name than deeponion but it just couldn't be done - John Oliver
https://youtu.be/g6iDZspbRMg?t=677
Your link is broken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6iDZspbRMg @11:17
Oh sorry I think I mislead you. I think it's just my vpn putting me out of region for that channel. I watched it though. I definitely lold pretty hard at the jab at deep onion.
Imagine if a similar proportion of the daily liquidity in usd was dumped into FX markets over a couple of months. That would amount to roughly 700bn. Nuclear winter? Perhaps literally so.
Just wait until all the people trading in traditional financial markets are kids who cut their teeth on crypto. What would have caused panic, mass hystaria, and accusations of russion infiltration today will instead cause yawns, shrugs and quiet resigned sips of coffee.
By the time all the kid who cut their teeth on crypto grow up - crypto will have subsumed the traditional markets.
Well it will be a hybrid. Traditional assets will migrate onto blockchain but there will still be securities, bonds, derivatives contracts and equities ect... Things that are more traditional that they aren't generally trading right now.
LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6iDZspbRMg&feature=youtu.be&t=677
Quote
I couldn't come up with a dumber name than deeponion but it just couldn't be done - John Oliver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6iDZspbRMg&feature=youtu.be&t=677
Your link is broken.
Should work now, but if not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6iDZspbRMg @11:17
Jump to: