Anti ASIC/GPU/FPGA POW-algorithm - The Bitcoin Forum
Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) – BitcoinWiki
Häufig gestellte Fragen (FAQ) FPGA Guide
SUQA is an opensource peer to peer digital currency
SUQA is a new opensource peer to peer digital currency that gives the investors 5% apr interest from term deposits even if the wallet is offline. It is based on an improved code of the secure and widely used Bitcoin Blockchain with a brand new advanced memory intensive X22i POW algo which is completely ASIC, FPGA and Quantum Resistant.
Disclaimer: This is my editing, so there could be always some misunderstandings and exaggerations, plus many convos are from 'spec channel', so take it with a grain of salt, pls. + I added some recent convos afterward. -------------------------------------------------- 📷 Luigi Vigneri [IF]어제 오후 8:26 Giving the opportunity to everybody to set up/run nodes is one of IOTA's priority. A minimum amount of resources is obviously required to prevent easy attacks, but we are making sure that being active part of the IOTA network can be possible without crazy investments. we are building our solution in such a way that the protocol is fair and lightweight. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:24 IOTA is not "free to use" but it's - fee-less you have tokens? you can send them around for free 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:25 you have no tokens? you have to pay to use the network 📷 lekanovic어제 오후 11:25 I think it is a smart way to avoid the spamming network problem 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:26 owning tokens is essentially like owning a share of the actual network and the throughput it can process 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:26**** if you don't need all of that yourself, you can rent it out to people and earn money 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:27 mana = tokens * time since you own them simplified 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:27 the longer you hold your tokens and the more you have, the more mana you have but every now and then you have to move them to "realize" that mana 📷 lekanovic어제 오후 11:28 Is there any other project that is using a Mana solution to the network fee problem ? 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:28 nah the problem with current protocol is that they are leader based 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:29 you need absolute consensus on who the current leaders are and what their influence in the network is that's how blockchains works 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:29 if two block producers produce 2 blocks at the same time, then you have to choose which one wins and where everybody attaches their next block to IOTA works differently and doesn't need to choose a single leader we therefore have a much bigger flexibility of designing our sybil protection mechanisms in a way, mana is also supposed to solve the problem of "rewarding" the infrastructure instead of the validators in blockchain only the miners get all the money running a node and even if it's one that is used by a lot of people will only cost you won't get anything back no fees, nothing the miners get it all 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:31 in IOTA, the node operators receive the mana which gives them a share of the network throughput 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:32 because in blockchain you need to decide whose txs become part of the blocks and it's not really based on networking protocols like AIMD 📷 lekanovic어제 오후 11:33 And the more Mana your node have, the more trust your node has and you have more to say in the FPC, is that correct? 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:33 yeah a node that has processed a lot of txs of its users will have more mana than other nodes and therefore a bigger say in deciding conflicts its a direct measure of "trust" by its users 📷 lekanovic어제 오후 11:34 And choosing committee for dRNG would be done on L1 protocol level? Everything regarding Mana will be L1 level, right? 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:35 Yeah Mana is layer1, but will also be used as weight in L2 solutions like smart contracts 📷 lekanovic어제 오후 11:35 And you are not dependant on using SC to implement this 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:35 No, you don't need smart contracts That's all the base layer 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:37 'Time' actually takes into account things like decay So it doesn't just increase forever It's close to "Demurrage" in monetary theory 📷 lekanovic어제 오후 11:36 For projects to be able to connect to Polkadot or Cosmos, you need to get the state of the ledger. Will it be possible to get the Tangle state? If this would be possible, then I think it would be SUPER good for IOTA 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:38 Yeah but polkadot is not connecting other dlts Just inhouse stuff 📷 Hyperware어제 오후 11:39 Is there still a cap on mana so that the rich don't get richer? 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:39 Yes mana is capped 📷 TangleAccountant어제 오후 11:39 u/HansMoog [IF] My first thought is thatthe evolution of this renting system will lead to several big mana renting companies that pool together tons of token holders mana. That way businesses looking to rent mana just need to deal with a reliable mana renting company for years instead of a new individualevery couple of months (because life happens and you don't know if that individual will need to sell their IOTAs due to personal reasons). Any thoughts on this? 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:41 u/TangleAccountantyes that is likely - but also not a bad thing - token holders will have a place to get their monthly payout and the companies that want to use the tangle without having tokens have a place to pay 📷 TangleAccountant어제 오후 11:42 Oh I completely agree.That's really cool. I'll take a stab at creating one of those companies in the US. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:42 And everybody who wants to run a node themselves or has tokens and wants use the tangle for free can do so But "leachers" that would want to use the network for free won't be able to do so I mean ultimately there will always be "fees", as there is no "free lunch". You have a certain amount of resources that a network can process and you have a certain demand. And that will naturally result in fees based on supply / demand what you can do however is to build a system where the actual users of that system that legitimately want to use it can do so for free, just because they already "invest" enough by having tokens or running infrastructure they are already contributing to the well-being of the network through these two aspects alone it would be stupid to ask those guys for additional fees and mana essentially tries to be such a measure of honesty among the users 📷 Hyperware어제 오후 11:47 It's interesting from an investment perspective that having tokens/mana is like owning a portion of the network. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:48 Yeah, you are owning a certain % of the throughput and whatever the price will ultimately be to execute on this network - you will earn proportionally but you have to keep in mind that we are trying to build the most efficient DLT that you could possibly ever build 📷 semibaron어제 오후 11:48 The whole mana (tokens) = share of network throuput sounds very much like EOS tbh Just that EOS uses DPoS 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:50 yeah i mean there is really not too many new things under the sun - you can just tweak a few things here and there, when it comes to distributing resources DPoS is simply not very nice from a centralization aspect 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:50 at least not the way EOS does it delegating weights is 1 thing but assuming that the weight will always be in a way that 21 "identities" run the whole network is bad in the current world you see a centralization of power but ultimately we want to build a future where the wealth is more evenly distributed and the same goes for voting power 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:52 blockchain needs leader selection it only works with such a centralizing component IOTA doesn't need that it's delusional to say that IOTA wouldn't have any such centralization but maybe we get better than just a handselected nodes📷 📷 Phantom3D어제 오후 11:52 How would this affect a regular hodler without a node. Should i keep my tokens elsewere to generate mana and put the tokens to use? 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:53 you can do whatever you want with your mana just make an account at a node you regularly use and use it to build up a reputation with that node to be able to use your funds for free or run a node yourself or rent it out to companies if you just hodl 📷 semibaron어제 오후 11:54 Will there be a build-in function into the node software / wallet to delegate ("sell") my mana? 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:55 u/semibaronnot from the start - that would happen on a 2nd layer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 📷 dom어제 오후 9:49
suddenly be incentive to hold iota?
to generate Mana 📷 Hyperware오늘 오전 4:21 The only thing I can really do, is believe that the IF have smart answers and are still building the best solutions they can for the sake of the vision 📷 dom오늘 오전 4:43 100% - which is why we're spending so much effort to communicate it more clearly now we'll do an AMA on this topic very soon 📷 M [s2]오늘 오전 4:54 u/dom please accept my question for the AMA: will IOTA remain a permissionless system and if so, how? 📷 dom오늘 오전 4:57 of course it remains permissionless 📷 dom오늘 오전 5:20 what is permissioned about it? is ETH or Bitcoin permissioned because you have to pay a transaction fee in their native token? 📷 Gerrit오늘 오전 5:24 How did your industry partners think about the mana solution and the fact they need to hold the token to ensure network throughput? 📷 dom오늘 오전 5:26 u/Gerritconsidering how the infrastructure, legal and regulatory frameworks are improving around the adoption and usage of crypto-currencies within large companies, I really think that we are introducing this concept exactly at the right time. It should make enterprise partners comfortable in using the permissionless network without much of a hurdle.They can always launch their own network if they want to ... 📷 Gerrit오늘 오전 5:27 Launching their own network can’t be what you want 📷 dom오늘 오전 5:27 exactly but that is what's happening with Ethereum and all the other networks they don't hold Ether tokens either. 📷 Gerrit오늘 오전 5:32 Will be very exciting to see if ongoing regulation will „allow“ companies to invest and hold the tokens. With upcoming custody solutions that would be a fantastic play. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:34 It's still possible to send transactions even without mana - mana is only used in times of congestion to give the people that have more mana more priority there will still be sharding to keep the network free most of the time 📷 Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:35 but without a protection mechanism, somebody could just spam a lot of bullshit and you could break the network(수정됨) you need some form of protection from this 📷 M [s2]오늘 오전 5:36 u/HansMoog [IF]so when I have 0 Mana, I can still send transactions? This is actually the point where it got strange... 📷 Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:37 yes you can unless the network is close to its processing capabilities / being attacked by spammers then the nodes will favor the mana holders 📷 Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:37 but having mana is not a requirement for many years to come currently even people having fpgas can't spam that many tps and we will also have sharding implemented by then 📷 M [s2]오늘 오전 5:39 Thank youu/HansMoog [IF] ! This is the actually important piece of info! 📷 Basha오늘 오전 5:38 ok, i thought it was communicated that you need at least 1 mana to process a transaction. from the blogpost: "... a node with 0 mana can issue no transactions." maybe they meant during the congestion**, but if that's the case maybe you should add that** 📷 Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:42 its under the point "Congestion control:" yeah this only applies to spam attacks network not overloaded = no mana needed 📷 Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:43 if congested => favor txs from people who have the most skin in the game but sharding will try to keep the network non-congested most of the time - but there might be short periods of time where an attacker might bring the network close to its limits and of course its going to take a while to add this, so we need a protection mechanism till sharding is supported(수정됨) 📷 Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 6:36 I don't have a particular problem with EOS or their amount of validators - the reason why I think blockchain is inferior has really nothing to do with the way you do sybil protection and with validators I mean "voting nodes" I mean even bitcoin has less mining pools and you could compare mining pools to dpos in some sense where people assign their weight (in that case hashing power) to the corresponding mining pools so EOS is definitely not less decentralized than any other tech but having more identities having weight in the decision process definitely makes it harder to corrupt a reasonable fraction of the system and makes it easier to shard so its desirable to have this property(수정됨) ------------------------------------------------- 📷 Antonio Nardella [IF]오늘 오전 3:36
u/C3PO[92% Cooless]They could also add more git repos instead of the wallet one, and we would probably be #1 there too.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: I'm sorry, maybe I'm fueling some confusion through posting this mana-thing too soon, but, instead of erasing this posting, I'm adding recent convos. Certain things about mana seem to be not clear, yet. It would be better to wait for some official clarification. But, I hope the community gives its full support to IF, 'cause there could be always some bumps along the untouched, unchartered way. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recent Addition;
Billy Sanders [IF]오늘 오후 1:36
It's still possible to send transactions even without mana - mana is only used in times of congestion to give the people that have more mana more priority
u/HansMoog [IF] Im sorry Hans, but this is false in the current congestion control algorithm. No mana = no transactions. To be honest, we havent really tried to make it work so that you can sent transactions with no mana during ties with no congestion, but I dont see how you can enable this and still maintain the sybil protection required. u/LuigiVigneri [IF] What do you think?📷
Dave [EF]오늘 오후 2:19
Suggestion: Sidebar, then get back to us with the verdict.(수정됨)📷2📷
dom오늘 오후 2:27
No Mana no tx will definitely not be the case(수정됨)📷5📷7***[오후 2:28]***Billy probably means the previous rate control paper as it was written by Luigi. I'll clarify with them📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오후 2:29
When was this decided u/BillySanders [IF] and by whom? Was this discussed at last resum when I wasnt there? The last info that I had was that the congestion control should only kick in when there is congestion?!?***[오후 2:29]***📷 📷 📷📷
Navin Ramachandran [IF]오늘 오후 2:30
Let's sidebar this discussion and return when we have agreement. Dave has the right idea
If there is a cryptocurrency that has acquired popularity close to Bitcoin, then it is Ethereum. It is among the leading crypto-currencies when it comes to market capitalization. Ethereum is not just a cryptocurrency, but it is also a blockchain system that is useful in creating decentralised applications. Since Ethereum Blockchain is used by most companies now, it is gaining popularity among Ethereum miners and developers. Ethereum mining is a great way to make more cash. Benefiting from cryptocurrencies in p is a perfect option. Since many applications for Blockchain depend on Ethereum. Ethereum mining is going to be lucrative, as its price is expected to grow. The Ethereum minimum can be simplified with the use of the best Ethereum software. There are some apps like that on the market, and we've got the seven best for you here. 7 Ethereum 's Best Apps: ETHminer- This is an Ethereum mining application which is supported on Linux , Windows, and Mac. It is also possible to use the Ethash algorithm, luke Ellaisma, Musicoin Ethereum Classic, Metaverse, It is a command-line program that allows you to construct shortcut commands using a Windows cmd / batch file or Linux Bash script. The next software on our list is CGMiner-A, which was published in 2011. It is one of the common choices and has compatibility with GPU, FPGA, and ASIC. It is open-source software and can cause advanced detection of blocks. It is written in C; Ethereum developers are able to save a hash rate without delay using this Ethereum mining programme. On Linux , Windows, and Mac, this program is open. BitMinter- The graphical interface is transparent and it links easily to the Bitminter mining pool. This software was launched in 2011 and has more than 450,000 user accounts registered. The Java Network Launch Protocol (JNLP) is the foundation of its operations. Linux, Windows and Mac are also compatible with this programme. Claymore- This is one of the most powerful mining applications for Ethereum, and without delaying the mining pace, you can scale up the hash rate. You can also mine other cryptocurrencies like Lbry, Pascal, Siacoin, and Decred using this Ethereum mining programme. This software is Linux and Windows compatible and not Mac compatible. WinETH- If you are looking for an Ethereum mining app that is fast and simple to use, then this is the one for you. It is comparable to WinETH, but it has a simpler Interface and a smarter algorithm that makes it easy to use for Ethereum miners. Minergate-It was the first mining app for Ethereum to deliver merged mining. You can use this app to concurrently mine two separate coins without impacting the main coin's hash rate. In addition, this coin will also tell you about the market's most valuable coins. This programme can be used by Ethereum miners to mine other coins, including Zcash, Liteoin, Monero. BFGMiner- This programme is written in C and operates on various Linux, Windows and Mac operating systems. You will mine crypto coins and have both SHA256D and Scrypt on its algorithm. It also offers you total support for tracking. Conclusion- These are some of the popular mining applications for Ethereum that you can use. If you would like to know more about the creation of Ethereum, or Ethereum mining, If you wish to know more about Ethereum development, or Ethereum mining, or you want to enroll for Ethereum certification, connect with Blockchain Council today.
A field-programmable gate array (FPGA) is a chip that can be programmed to suit whatever purpose you want, as often as you want it and wherever you need it. FPGAs provide multiple advantages, including low latency, high throughput and energy efficiency. To fully understand what FPGAs offer, imagine a performance spectrum. At one end, you have the central processing unit (CPU), which offers a generic set of instructions that can be combined to carry out an array of different tasks. This makes a CPU extremely flexible, and its behaviour can be defined through software. However, CPUs are also slow because they have to select from the available generic instructions to complete each task. In a sense, they’re a “jack of all trades, but a master of none”. At the other end of the spectrum sit application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs). These are potentially much faster because they have been built with a single task in mind, making them a “master of one trade”. This is the kind of chip people use to mine bitcoin, for example. The downside of ASICs is that they can’t be changed, and they cost time and money to develop. FPGAs offer a perfect middle ground: they can be significantly faster than a CPU and are more flexible than ASICs. FPGAs contain thousands, sometimes even millions, of so-called core logic blocks (CLBs). These blocks can be configured and combined to process any task that can be solved by a CPU. Compared with a CPU, FPGAs aren’t burdened by surplus hardware that would otherwise slow you down. They can therefore be used to carry out specific tasks quickly and effectively, and can even process several tasks simultaneously. These characteristics make them popular across a wide range of sectors, from aerospace to medical engineering and security systems, and of course finance. How are FPGAs used in the financial services sector? Speed and versatility are particularly important when buying or selling stocks and other securities. In the era of electronic trading, decisions are made in the blink of an eye. As prices change and orders come and go, companies are fed new information from exchanges and other sources via high-speed networks. This information arrives at high speeds, with time measured in nanoseconds. The sheer volume and speed of data demands a high bandwidth to process it all. Specialized trading algorithms make use of the new information in order to make trades. FPGAs provide the perfect platform to develop these applications, as they allow you to bypass non-essential software as well as generic-purpose hardware. How do market makers use FPGAs to provide liquidity? As a market maker, IMC provides liquidity to buyers and sellers of financial instruments. This requires us to price every instrument we trade and to react to the market accordingly. Valuation is a view on what the price of an asset should be, which is handled by our traders and our automated pricing algorithms. When a counterpart wants to buy or sell an asset on a trading venue, our role is to always be there and offer, or bid, a fair price for the asset. FPGAs enable us to perform this key function in the most efficient way possible. At IMC, we keep a close eye on emerging technologies that can potentially improve our business. We began working with FPGAs more than a decade ago and are constantly exploring ways to develop this evolving technology. We work in a competitive industry, so our engineers have to be on their toes to make sure we’re continuously improving. What does an FPGA engineer do? Being an FPGA engineer is all about learning and identifying new solutions to challenges as they arise. A software developer can write code in a software language and know within seconds whether it works, and so deploy it quickly. However, the code will have to go through several abstraction layers and generic hardware components. Although you can deploy the code quickly, you do not get the fastest possible outcome. As an FPGA engineer, it may take two to three hours of compilation time before you know whether your adjustment will result in the outcome you want. However, you can increase performance at the cost of more engineering time. The day-to-day challenge you face is how to make the process as efficient as possible with the given trade-offs while pushing the boundaries of the FPGA technology. Skills needed to be an FPGA engineer Things change extremely rapidly in the trading world, and agility is the name of the game. Unsurprisingly, FPGA engineers tend to enjoy a challenge. To work as an FGPA engineer at a company like IMC, you have to be a great problem-solver, a quick learner and highly adaptable. What makes IMC a great fit for an FPGA engineer? IMC offers a great team dynamic. We are a smaller company than many larger technology or finance houses, and we operate very much like a family unit. This means that, as a graduate engineer, you’ll never be far from the action, and you’ll be able to make an impact from day one. Another key difference is that you’ll get to see the final outcome of your work. If you come up with an idea, we’ll give you the chance to make it work. If it does, you’ll see the results put into practice in a matter of days, which is always a great feeling. If it doesn’t, you’ll get to find out why – so there’s an opportunity to learn and improve for next time. Ultimately, working at IMC is about having skin in the game. You’ll be entrusted with making your own decisions. And you’ll be working side by side with super smart people who are open-minded and always interested in hearing your ideas. Market making is a technology-dependent process, and we’re all in this together. Think you have what it takes to make a difference at a technology graduate at IMC?Check out our graduate opportunities page.
Written by the CoinEx Institution, this series of jocular and easy to understand articles will show you everything you need to know about major cryptocurrencies, making you fully prepared before jumping into crypto! https://preview.redd.it/ryvcznqspe451.jpg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5fa91e26288d7b0a624113ed21172cc9fd5624a3 Monero, or XMR for short, is an open-source cryptocurrency that is safe, reliable, private, and untraceable. It can run on Windows, Mac, Linux, and FreeBSD, and is known as one of the most private cryptocurrencies. In 2018, Monero already ranked 10th in terms of trading volume, with its market value beyond 1 billion US dollars, an evidence for its great fame in this field. By a special method in cryptography, Monero ensures that all transactions remain 100% irrelevant and untraceable. Perhaps after reading this article, you will understand why it is so special and popular in the increasingly transparent and traceable cryptocurrency circle (After all privacy comes first!). In fact, many large cryptocurrencies in the world are not anonymous. All transactions on Bitcoin and Ethereum are made public and traceable, which means that anyone can eavesdrop on transactions flowing into and out of the wallet. That has given rise to a new type of cryptocurrency called “privacy currency”! These “privacy currencies” hide encrypted transactions by adopting specific types of passwords. One typical example is Monero, one of the largest privacy cryptocurrencies in the world. Monero was created on April 18, 2014 under the name BitMonero, literally the combination of Bit (Bitcoin) and Monero (the “coin” in Esperanto). In five days, the community decided to change its name to Monero. Interestingly, Monero’s creators valued personal privacy and tried to behave in a low-key manner with pseudonyms instead of the real names. It is said that the Monero major contributor’s nickname is “thankful for today”, yet this guy has gradually disappeared from public view as Monero developed day by day. Unlike many cryptocurrencies derived from BTC, Monero is based on the CryptoNote protocol. It is also the first branch based on the Bytecoin of CryptoNote currency. Here is some information about Bytecoin: BCN, for short, is a decentralized cryptocurrency with a high degree of privacy; it has open-source codes that allow everyone to contribute to the development of the Bytecoin network; and the Bytecoin network provides global users with instant private transactions that are not traceable and at no additional cost. Yet, as a branch of BCN, Monero outshines its parent in reputation by being different in two ways. First, Monero’s target block time was reduced from 120 seconds to 60 seconds; second, the issuance speed was cut by 50% (which reverted to 120-second residence later, with the issuance time maintained and the reward for each new block doubled). By the way, during the fork, the Monero developers also found a lot of low-quality codes and then refactored them. (That is exactly what geeks will do) Monero’s modular code structure was also highly appreciated by Wladimir J. van der Laan, one of the core maintainers of Bitcoin. Monero values privacy, decentralization and scalability, and there are significant algorithm differences in blockchain fuzzification, which sets it apart from its peers. How private is it? Here are more details. 1. Safe and reliable For a decentralized cryptocurrency, decentralization means that its network is operated by users; transactions are confirmed by decentralized consensus and then recorded on the blockchain irrevocably. Monero needs no third party to guarantee the safety of funds; 2. Privacy protection Monero confuses all transaction sources, amounts, and recipients through ring signatures, ring confidential transactions, and invisible addresses. Apart from all the advantages of a decentralized cryptocurrency, it is by no means inferior in safeguarding privacy; 3. Unable to track The sender, the receiver and the transaction amount of all Monero transactions must be anonymous by default. The information on the Monero Blockchain cannot be matched with physical individuals or specific users, so there is no trace to track; 4. Scalable Everyone knows that Bitcoin’sability to process transactions has always been limited by the scalability issue; as we have mentioned before in the introduction of Bitcoin, the block size of 1MB makes things difficult. But Monero’s developers have created a system that allows the network to process more transactions when needed; what’s more, Monero does not have any “pre-set” restrictions on block size. Of course, this also means that some malicious miners may block the system with large blocks. To prevent this from happening, Monero has worked out countermeasures: the block reward penalty of the system. On October 18, 2018, Monero’s latest hard fork changed the consensus mechanism algorithm to CrypotoNight V8. In this hard fork, it introduced the BulletProff bulletproof protocol, which can also effectively reduce the transaction fee of miners without disclosing transactions It is said that Monero will issue about 18.4 million XMR in around 8 years. Moreover, it eclipses its counterparts in distribution — with no pre-mining or pre-sale, all block rewards will be left to miners by means of the POW mechanism. Here is the reward scheme of Monero in two stages:
Acceleration: mine 18132000 XMR before May 2022;
Deceleration: Deceleration starts right after 18132000 XMR are mined, and there will be a reward of 0.6XMR for each block mined afterwards. In this way, the overall supply will be kept on a small scale and decelerated.
Monero is also excellent in its development concept that is designed to be anti-ASIC from the very beginning. Here is a brief introduction to ASIC (Special Application Integrated Circuit). Due to the specificity of ASICs, specially designed ASICs can usually have much higher hashrate than general CPUs, GPUs, and even FPGAs — that makes hashrate excessively centralized and makes it vulnerable to the monopoly of single centralized institutions. Yet the cryptonight algorithm used by Monero allows most CPUs and even FPGAs to get involved and get mining rewards, instead of making GPU the only one that can efficiently mine. In other words, Monero’s core development team will modify the consensus mechanism algorithm and have a hard fork after some time to ensure its strength against ASIC and the monopoly of hashrate. However, although Monero has been designed against ASICs to avoid centralization, nearly 43% of its hashrate is still owned by 3 mining pools; in addition, it is not a BTC-based currency, making it even harder to introduce some elements. Of course, Monero is not that newbie-friendly, and thus has not been widely accepted. Yet each cryptocurrency has its own features. As long as Monero keeps improving its privacy, it will definitely attract increasing followers. If you are interested in Monero, welcome to CoinEx for exchange or trade.
As a global and professional cryptocurrency exchange service provider, CoinEx was founded in December 2017 with Bitmain-led investment and has obtained a legal license in Estonia. It is a subsidiary brand of the ViaBTC Group, which owns the fifth largest BTC mining pool, which is also the largest of BCH mining, in the world. CoinEx supports perpetual contract, spot, margin trading and other derivatives trading, and its service reaches global users in nearly 100 countries/regions with various languages available, such as Chinese, English, Korean and Russian. Website:https://www.coinex.com/ Twitter:https://twitter.com/coinexcom Telegram:https://t.me/CoinExOfficialENG Click hereto register on CoinEx!
THE END OF ALL ASIC MINERS? - Monero's New Superweapon: "Time Locked Proof of Non-ASIC work challenge reward" algorithms.
I propose the following algorithm to end this War of attrition with ASIC / FPGA manufacturers , hopefully once and for all and save us Precious PoW Tweaks during the upcoming forks.
"A time-locked, Proof of 'Non-ASIC work' Challenge reward algorithm"
Here's an image to help you visualise how the algorithm works (details below): https://imgur.com/a/9S8dA Here's why we need it: ASIC manufacturers mine in Secret to attack our decentralized network. They'll win the war since they'll 'get their investment back' before we brick their ASICs, allowing them to launch never-ending attacks against our decentralization, for eternity. Quick Overview This algorithm uses the concept of "time-locked reward challenges". The algorithm ‘time-locks’ the reward, then issues a ‘non-ASIC’ work challenge during each regular PoW Fork, which distributes mined rewards only to CPU and GPU miners who can pass the challenge and prove they are not ASICS, by maintaining their hashrate during the ASIC downtime. These Hash-rate challenges after PoW Forks successfully ‘detect’, and ‘Severely Penalize’ anyone Mining with an ASIC/FPGA, even those in Secret. Proof of Concept: An Actual Demonstration I'll demonstrate this algorithm in action: Please see this image to help you Visualise how the algorithm works: https://imgur.com/a/9S8dA There is a critical flaw and uniquely identifying feature that exists in absolutely 'ALL ASIC and FPGA miners', even those mining in Secret. As most of you may know, with the upcoming V7 PoW hardfork,
An ASIC miner’s hash rate component drops to Absolute zero for a set period of time afterwards, because their ASIC function can no longer be used with a PoW tweak.
Normal GPU and CPU miners are also very easy to identify; as they have no problem maintaining a relatively similar maximum hash rate after the fork.
Instead of just destroying an ASIC with a fork, we can further exploit this to attack the ASIC Manufacturer or Miner by taking back all their mined rewards and giving them to the community The Special timeframe is PoW Fork + 'N' Days. ('N' being however many days remaining where it would be "impossible" to build and startup a new ASIC/FPGA after the fork.) To exploit this, the algorithm introduces a period of time called the "Mining Rewards Collection Timeframe" (MRCT), the time period in between regular PoW Hardforks. the grey shaded area in this image This "Mining Rewards Collection Timeframe" is a time whereby all mining profit rewards are 'time-locked' or held hostage in escrow, on either the mining pool, or on the Actual Blockchain code itself, or Both, depending on where this algorithm is eventually deployed. The algorithm stores the wallet address a mining reward belongs to, and the maximum hash rate (or maximum value adjusted share rate per day) observed during the "Mining rewards collection timeframe" for that particular wallet address. This "Mining Rewards Collection Timeframe" can be of any duration as required by the developers; 1,2,3,4,5,6 Months or longer . The longer This Timeframe, the more dangerous it is to ASIC miners. Meaning we don't have to rush with forks. Since it's time-locked, mined coins/rewards cannot be cashed out until the coming challenge; However, mining pools can still choose to payout smaller miners before that time if they have a 'good stable Non-Asic Hash challenge passing history', or a deposit on file, or at their own risk, so most good miners don't have to wait to cashout rewards!. Big miners on the other hand, won't care! Why? Because the delay doesn't cost them anything. (it's a TINY TINY inconvenience compared to the damage ASICs would do to GPU mining profits. I hope this makes sense) Now for the Critical ANTI-ASIC Work Challenge. Time passes and the mining rewards collection timeframe ends with a Hardfork that changes the PoW algorithm slightly, All ASICS and FPGAs are INSTANTLY destroyed. At the same time, the mining rewards from that collection timeframe are now ready to be paid out. Since only the CPU / GPU miners are able to hash normally, The Algorithm now issues a Hash Rate challenge to determine how much of the coins mined were actually mined by ASIC or FPGA miners. The challenge is nothing special. Miners just have to leave their miners running normally at maximum speed for the period of the challenge, same as they do everyday! During this challenge, their "Average Maximum Hash rate during the challenge" is compared to the "Maximum Hash Rate speed" recorded on the blockchain during the Mining Rewards Collection Timeframe. See the green dotted line in the image Thus at this point, since ASICs are DEAD, they cannot Hash at the same rate during this challenge period, so any significant difference in hashrate would thus clearly indicate the use of an ASIC or FPGA miner. Now, we have all the information we need to STRIP ASIC Miners of ALL their gains, and Reward GPU miners instead. As shown in the earlier image
Example 1: A miner using PURELY 100% CPU and GPUs to mine, will easily pass the challenge as though it never happened. They can easily maintain 90% or more of their maximum hash rate recorded, well within the agreed margin of error. So they get the Full 100% Mining Reward, Plus a fair share of any of the coins forefitted by the ASIC Miners as a Bonus., (ie, 101% , or more.. possibly)
Example 2: A miner hashing with 100% ASICs or FPGAs, will be dead during this challenge and can match “0.00%” (ie, Nothing) of their maximum hash rate observed. As such, they proportionally also get “0.00%” of the rewards they mined and forefit all their rewards to other miners.
Example 3: A miner hashing with 60% ASICs and 40% CPU/GPUs will only be able to maintain 40% of their Maximum hash rate during the challenge period. As such, they proportionally only get 40% of all the Mining rewards they earned and forefit and Lose the 60% of all coins mined by the ASIC miners.
What if a 1 GPU breaks in a 12 GPU mining farm during the challenge? (Very rare) or for some reason, you can't mine during that period? then the miner can simply rent the GPUs from nicehash for the Challenge. An ASIC miner however, cannot use this strategy (because ASICS are not GPUs, explained further below). Also we can implement a 2nd chance option; the confiscated reward may be frozen for the next Cycle; and the miner may get a 2nd chance to prove the hashrate again, with a % reward penalty. The Beautiful thing is that If ASIC miners fail the challenge, Everyone gets a Bonus share of the Reward Forefitted by the ASIC miners, So Everyone wants the ASIC miners to fail so they get Free extra money. and thus have a financial reason to support this algorithm. *There is no escaping it... or is there? Is it ASIC PROOF? Can you Cheat this algorithm? I've also tried to see if you can work around this algorithm:
Example 1: What if they switched in GPUS to mine for an ASIC during the challenge? Well, that wouldn't work. When the challenge comes, they can either save the rewards mined by the GPUs, or save the rewards mined by the ASICs, One will always be lost and result is the same anyway because you'd only get paid for the Hash rate of the GPU. The ASIC portion of the hash rate will ALWAYS be lost.
Example 2: What if they use the GPUs to mine a different coin and have them only hash for the ASIC during the challenge period?
Consider the Antminer X3. at 200KH/s, to support just "ONE ASIC", they would need over 200 RX 580 Cards or 100 VEGA cards to pass the challenge... costing well over $60,000 (SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS) and if they depreciate at ~ 10~15% a year, they'd lose $6000~$9000 a year. it's not enough to cover your losses,
Also, What other coin could you mine? If ASICS are so powerful, there won't be another coin except those running this algorithm. Then, the dev can choose to issue the challenge at the same point as the other coin using the same algorithm, so they lose all rewards from one coin as 1 rig cannot sustain two challenge algorithms at the same time.
Example 3: What if they just leave some GPUS on standby to avoid the power costs? Then ASIC's would still be unable to be mass produced anyway. Because for every ASIC Mass produced, you'd need to Mass Produce 200 times the GPUS to support them in their place, and own of all them. practically impossible.
Example 4: What if they rented hashing power from Nicehash to fill in during the Challenge period?
Yes, but so can we! The beautiful thing about this algorithm, is if we rent the limited hashing power on Nicehash first before them at break even or loss, it doesn't matter, Because, the ASIC miner cannot rent and hash rate and will fail the challenge, and Forefit the ENORMOUS amount of Rewards to the community. Imagine, Mining at such a high rate for months on end , the rewards confiscated and paid to GPU miners will easily offset any of the tiny losses renting hashrate from Nicehash, so ultimately, The ASIC miners lose Everything, and the community (you and me) gets all their money.
Also if ASICs Dominate the crypto market, there won't be any GPU to rent, all remaining coins would be mining this algorithm, meaning they would have to save their own hashrate for themselves, not rent it to ASIC miners. otherwise they lose their reward. Brand new users may rent their GPU's but its no where near enough to cover the ASIC hash shortfall in the challenge.
Example 5: What if they waited till we exhausted our supply of PoW fork tweaks? That's the beauty of this algorithm!. We don't actually have to tweak the PoW algorithm on a constant basis! We can intentionally leave it the same. So Everyone passes the Challenge, Then when we do detect an asic "trying to Mine their Money Back in secret (as they do now)", We tweak the PoW at the Next Hardfork. Destroying and bankrupting their very first attempt, and we get all their money and rewards, So there's no need to waste a PoW tweak in a pre-emptive strike, because the rewards are Time-Locked to the future. We can lie in wait with a single PoW like a Trap, and eat them alive (literally we get all their rewards after the challenge!). We can maintain this lethal threat to ASIC manufacturers without having to change the PoW at all!
And remember, all this effort is just for ONLY, ONE ASIC. meaning you Can't mass produce it. So ultimately it wouldn't even make sense to even develop an ASIC, as you'd be far more profitable just mining only with the 200+ GPU's required to cheat the algorithm. *So in summary, *
No ASIC/FPGA miner can escape the challenge. Not even those running in secret.
All ASIC miners are guaranteed to suffer a huge (possibly fatal) financial loss, with no prospect of any return on investment. Time locked rewards ensure No secret pre-mining with ASICs is possible. ASICs are destroyed with each challenge, all R&D and manufacturing costs and the electricity bill used to power them is wasted for basically "ZERO returns",
…..and lets not forget that all their rewards gets given away to other honest miners like you and Me!. ( LOL!) or potentially the developers of the fork :)
As long as the algorithm is active and used by multiple coins, no ASICs will ever exist to mine in secret,
We save precious PoW tweak changes, since there's no need for a pre-emptive PoW strike to prevent 'ASIC hit and run' pre-mine scenarios.
ASIC manufacturers see that the war is un-winnable and go invest in other things,
So, in theory, The War Ends. (at least for a very good part of the future) As they say: " Don't build a wall and hide in fear.... Build a wall and launch missiles from behind it against the enemy so they will never dare attack us again." I would like to point out that time locked reward challenges are already in use by the Olympic games to Strip drug cheats in the past by storing samples and testing them in the future, and it's also in the PPLNS minig pool algorithms to deter pool hopping cheats, and also in the Bitcoin's Lightning network in the form of decrementing time-locks" that 'enforce the transfer of funds' under certain conditions. Is it beautiful? Will it work? Can it be done? Let's discuss this
Today, in about 30 minutes or less from now, RandomX will be activated on Monero as part of its network protocol upgrade, so this seems like a good moment to share this timeline. It’s like the raw material for writing the history of ASIC resistant proof-of-work algorithms. If you think it’s incomplete, let me know what you’d like to add. I didn’t include Monero ASICs or FPGAs that weren’t publicly released, since it would be difficult to pin down a date. Original version written in Dutch for Monero Meetup Utrecht #2 on March 14, 2019 (next meetup is on Tuesday, December 3). 2010-10: Start of Bitcoin mining on GPUs 2011-06: First Bitcoin FPGAs (field-programmable gate arrays) 2011-09-26: Launch of Tenebrix (with a premine) using Scrypt algo to avoid GPUs 2011-10-13: Fair launch of Litecoin, also using Scrypt 2013-01-19: Avalon releases the first Bitcoin ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit) 2014-03: Secretly premined launch of Bytecoin, using CryptoNight version 0 2014-04: First Litecoin ASICs 2014-12-13: Vertcoin switches from Scrypt-N to Lyra2RE (multi-algo, currently 5) 2014-01: X11, a chain of 11 algos, for Xcoin => Darkcoin => Dash 2014-09: Digibyte switches to Myriadcoin's multi-algo with separate difficulty adjustment 2015-07-30: Ethash for Ethereum (memory-hard, i.e. using lots of RAM) 2018-04-06: CryptoNight version 2 by Monero (flipped a bit) 2018-05: Bitmain releases the Antminer X3 for CryptoNight, which doesn’t mine Monero 2018-07: Bitmain releases Antminer E3, the first Ethash ASIC 2018-10-01: Siacoin developers use a protocol change to disable ASICs other than their own Obelisk SC1 miner 2018-10-18: CryptoNight version 3 by Monero (changed a bit more than one bit) 2018-10/12: Successful 51% attack on Vertcoin (double spends by ASIC miners) 2019-01-15: Launch of Grin using two algorithms, one ASIC friendly and one ASIC resistant 2019-03-09: Monero’s CryptoNight version 4 or CryptoNightR, a self-programming algorithm, generating hashing instructions pseudo-randomly 2019-11-30: RandomX, a randomized and memory-hard algorithm, designed from scratch to use all elements of a general-purpose CPU 2020-??: Ethereum will probably switch to ProgPOW (programmatic proof of work) before switching to proof of stake
[–]OverkillerSRB 3 ポイント 2時間前 It's a dead fork of Bitcoin, result of community unhappiness with where Bitcoin was going. Either way, it's "maintained" by Bitmain (from their wallet at least) which is a non-alternative. If you want electronic, peer to peer, private cash, Monero is the way to go.
There are at least three big lies in this post if we skip the bitmain statement:
That Bitcoin Cash is a "dead fork" of Bitcion.
That Bitcoin Cash is not usable as p2p, private (CashShuffle) digitial Cash.
That Monero somehow is.
Monero of course is completely unusable in comparison to Bitcoin Cash. You have to wait at the very least 20 minutes after spending your funds before you're able to spend them again. I.e. if you send a submaximal amount of monero, you can't use the rest of your funds for twenty minutes! Monero is also not any faster transactionally than BCH. Having a faster block time doesn't mean you're faster, it just means you're accepting less security per confirmation. Not to mention that the Monero core wallet is nearly impossible to sync. Often you are told to use a "remote node", but this dramatically weakens your privacy. More so than the default weakness that comes with Monero's really small anon set, and the tracing attacks linked below.
We show how an attacker can take advantage of Monero’s Bulletproof protocol, which reduces transaction fees, to flood the network with his own transactions and, consequently, remove mixins from transaction inputs. Assuming an attack timeframe of 12 months, our findings show that an attacker can trace up to 47.63% of the transaction inputs at a cost of just 1,746.53 USD.1 Moreover, we show also that more than 90% of the inputs are affected by our tracing algorithm.
That cost was based on transactions with 100 outputs, while the monero protocol limits this number to 16, which increases the cost of the attack to roughly $10,000 USD
Transcript of discussion between an ASIC designer and several proof-of-work designers from #monero-pow channel on Freenode this morning
[08:07:01] lukminer contains precompiled cn/r math sequences for some blocks: https://lukminer.org/2019/03/09/oh-kay-v4r-here-we-come/ [08:07:11] try that with RandomX :P [08:09:00] tevador: are you ready for some RandomX feedback? it looks like the CNv4 is slowly stabilizing, hashrate comes down... [08:09:07] how does it even make sense to precompile it? [08:09:14] mine 1% faster for 2 minutes? [08:09:35] naturally we think the entire asic-resistance strategy is doomed to fail :) but that's a high-level thing, who knows. people may think it's great. [08:09:49] about RandomX: looks like the cache size was chosen to make it GPU-hard [08:09:56] looking forward to more docs [08:11:38] after initial skimming, I would think it's possible to make a 10x asic for RandomX. But at least for us, we will only make an ASIC if there is not a total ASIC hostility there in the first place. That's better for the secret miners then. [08:13:12] What I propose is this: we are working on an Ethash ASIC right now, and once we have that working, we would invite tevador or whoever wants to come to HK/Shenzhen and we walk you guys through how we would make a RandomX ASIC. You can then process this input in any way you like. Something like that. [08:13:49] unless asics (or other accelerators) re-emerge on XMR faster than expected, it looks like there is a little bit of time before RandomX rollout [08:14:22] 10x in what measure? $/hash or watt/hash? [08:14:46] watt/hash [08:15:19] so you can make 10 times more efficient double precisio FPU? [08:16:02] like I said let's try to be productive. You are having me here, let's work together! [08:16:15] continue with RandomX, publish more docs. that's always helpful. [08:16:37] I'm trying to understand how it's possible at all. Why AMD/Intel are so inefficient at running FP calculations? [08:18:05] midipoet ([email protected]/web/irccloud.com/x-vszshqqxwybvtsjm) has joined #monero-pow [08:18:17] hardware development works the other way round. We start with 1) math then 2) optimization priority 3) hw/sw boundary 4) IP selection 5) physical implementation [08:22:32] This still doesn't explain at which point you get 10x [08:23:07] Weren't you the ones claiming "We can accelerate ProgPoW by a factor of 3x to 8x." ? I find it hard to believe too. [08:30:20] sure [08:30:26] so my idea: first we finish our current chip [08:30:35] from simulation to silicon :) [08:30:40] we love this stuff... we do it anyway [08:30:59] now we have a communication channel, and we don't call each other names immediately anymore: big progress! [08:31:06] you know, we russians have a saying "it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about ravines" [08:31:12] So I need a bit more details [08:31:16] ha ha. good! [08:31:31] that's why I want to avoid to just make claims [08:31:34] let's work [08:31:40] RandomX comes in Sep/Oct, right? [08:31:45] Maybe [08:32:20] We need to audit it first [08:32:31] ok [08:32:59] we don't make chips to prove sw devs that their assumptions about hardware are wrong. especially not if these guys then promptly hardfork and move to the next wrong assumption :) [08:33:10] from the outside, this only means that hw & sw are devaluing each other [08:33:24] neither of us should do this [08:33:47] we are making chips that can hopefully accelerate more crypto ops in the future [08:33:52] signing, verifying, proving, etc. [08:34:02] PoW is just a feature like others [08:34:18] sech1: is it easy for you to come to Hong Kong? (visa-wise) [08:34:20] or difficult? [08:34:33] or are you there sometimes? [08:34:41] It's kind of far away [08:35:13] we are looking forward to more RandomX docs. that's the first step. [08:35:31] I want to avoid that we have some meme "Linzhi says they can accelerate XYZ by factor x" .... "ha ha ha" [08:35:37] right? we don't want that :) [08:35:39] doc is almost finished [08:35:40] What docs do you need? It's described pretty good [08:35:41] so I better say nothing now [08:35:50] we focus on our Ethash chip [08:36:05] then based on that, we are happy to walk interested people through the design and what else it can do [08:36:22] that's a better approach from my view than making claims that are laughed away (rightfully so, because no silicon...) [08:36:37] ethash ASIC is basically a glorified memory controller [08:36:39] sech1: tevador said something more is coming (he just did it again) [08:37:03] yes, some parts of RandomX are not described well [08:37:10] like dataset access logic [08:37:37] RandomX looks like progpow for CPU [08:37:54] yes [08:38:03] it is designed to reflect CPU [08:38:34] so any ASIC for it = CPU in essence [08:39:04] of course there are still some things in regular CPU that can be thrown away for RandomX [08:40:20] uncore parts are not used, but those will use very little power [08:40:37] except for memory controller [08:41:09] I'm just surprised sometimes, ok? let me ask: have you designed or taped out an asic before? isn't it risky to make assumptions about things that are largely unknown? [08:41:23] I would worry [08:41:31] that I get something wrong... [08:41:44] but I also worry like crazy that CNv4 will blow up, where you guys seem to be relaxed [08:42:06] I didn't want to bring up anything RandomX because CNv4 is such a nailbiter... :) [08:42:15] how do you guys know you don't have asics in a week or two? [08:42:38] we don't have experience with ASIC design, but RandomX is simply designed to exactly fit CPU capabilities, which is the best you can do anyways [08:43:09] similar as ProgPoW did with GPUs [08:43:14] some people say they want to do asic-resistance only until the vast majority of coins has been issued [08:43:21] that's at least reasonable [08:43:43] yeah but progpow totally will not work as advertised :) [08:44:08] yeah, I've seen that comment about progpow a few times already [08:44:11] which is no surprise if you know it's just a random sales story to sell a few more GPUs [08:44:13] RandomX is not permanent, we are expecting to switch to ASIC friendly in a few years if possible [08:44:18] yes [08:44:21] that makes sense [08:44:40] linzhi-sonia: how so? will it break or will it be asic-able with decent performance gains? [08:44:41] are you happy with CNv4 so far? [08:45:10] ah, long story. progpow is a masterpiece of deception, let's not get into it here. [08:45:21] if you know chip marketing it makes more sense [08:45:24] linzhi-sonia: So far? lol! a bit early to tell, don't you think? [08:45:35] the diff is coming down [08:45:41] first few hours looked scary [08:45:43] I remain skeptical: I only see ASICs being reasonable if they are already as ubiquitous as smartphones [08:45:46] yes, so far so good [08:46:01] we kbew the diff would not come down ubtil affter block 75 [08:46:10] yes [08:46:22] but first few hours it looks like only 5% hashrate left [08:46:27] looked [08:46:29] now it's better [08:46:51] the next worry is: when will "unexplainable" hashrate come back? [08:47:00] you hope 2-3 months? more? [08:47:05] so give it another couple of days. will probably overshoot to the downside, and then rise a bit as miners get updated and return [08:47:22] 3 months minimum turnaround, yes [08:47:28] nah [08:47:36] don't underestimate asicmakers :) [08:47:54] you guys don't get #1 priority on chip fabs [08:47:56] 3 months = 90 days. do you know what is happening in those 90 days exactly? I'm pretty sure you don't. same thing as before. [08:48:13] we don't do any secret chips btw [08:48:21] 3 months assumes they had a complete design ready to go, and added the last minute change in 1 day [08:48:24] do you know who is behind the hashrate that is now bricked? [08:48:27] innosilicon? [08:48:34] hyc: no no, and no. :) [08:48:44] hyc: have you designed or taped out a chip before? [08:48:51] yes, many years ago [08:49:10] then you should know that 90 days is not a fixed number [08:49:35] sure, but like I said, other makers have greater demand [08:49:35] especially not if you can prepare, if you just have to modify something, or you have more programmability in the chip than some people assume [08:50:07] we are chipmakers, we would never dare to do what you guys are doing with CNv4 :) but maybe that just means you are cooler! [08:50:07] and yes, programmability makes some aspect of turnaround easier [08:50:10] all fine [08:50:10] I hope it works! [08:50:28] do you know who is behind the hashrate that is now bricked? [08:50:29] inno? [08:50:41] we suspect so, but have no evidence [08:50:44] maybe we can try to find them, but we cannot spend too much time on this [08:50:53] it's probably not so much of a secret [08:51:01] why should it be, right? [08:51:10] devs want this cat-and-mouse game? devs get it... [08:51:35] there was one leak saying it's innosilicon [08:51:36] so you think 3 months, ok [08:51:43] inno is cool [08:51:46] good team [08:51:49] IP design house [08:51:54] in Wuhan [08:52:06] they send their people to conferences with fake biz cards :) [08:52:19] pretending to be other companies? [08:52:26] sure [08:52:28] ha ha [08:52:39] so when we see them, we look at whatever card they carry and laugh :) [08:52:52] they are perfectly suited for secret mining games [08:52:59] they made at most $6 million in 2 months of mining, so I wonder if it was worth it [08:53:10] yeah. no way to know [08:53:15] but it's good that you calculate! [08:53:24] this is all about cost/benefit [08:53:25] then you also understand - imagine the value of XMR goes up 5x, 10x [08:53:34] that whole "asic resistance" thing will come down like a house of cards [08:53:41] I would imagine they sell immediately [08:53:53] the investor may fully understand the risk [08:53:57] the buyer [08:54:13] it's not healthy, but that's another discussion [08:54:23] so mid-June [08:54:27] let's see [08:54:49] I would be susprised if CNv4 ASICs show up at all [08:54:56] surprised* [08:54:56] why? [08:55:05] is only an economic question [08:55:12] yeah should be interesting. FPGAs will be near their limits as well [08:55:16] unless XMR goes up a lot [08:55:19] no, not *only*. it's also a technology question [08:55:44] you believe CNv4 is "asic resistant"? which feature? [08:55:53] it's not [08:55:59] cnv4 = Rabdomx ? [08:56:03] no [08:56:07] cnv4=cryptinight/r [08:56:11] ah [08:56:18] CNv4 is the one we have now, I think [08:56:21] since yesterday [08:56:30] it's plenty enough resistant for current XMR price [08:56:45] that may be, yes! [08:56:55] I look at daily payouts. XMR = ca. 100k USD / day [08:57:03] it can hold until October, but it's not asic resistant [08:57:23] well, last 24h only 22,442 USD :) [08:57:32] I think 80 h/s per watt ASICs are possible for CNv4 [08:57:38] linzhi-sonia where do you produce your chips? TSMC? [08:57:44] I'm cruious how you would expect to build a randomX ASIC that outperforms ARM cores for efficiency, or Intel cores for raw speed [08:57:48] curious [08:58:01] yes, tsmc [08:58:21] Our team did the world's first bitcoin asic, Avalon [08:58:25] and upcoming 2nd gen Ryzens (64-core EPYC) will be a blast at RandomX [08:58:28] designed and manufactured [08:58:53] still being marketed? [08:59:03] linzhi-sonia: do you understand what xmr wants to achieve, community-wise? [08:59:14] Avalon? as part of Canaan Creative, yes I think so. [08:59:25] there's not much interesting oing on in SHA256 [08:59:29] Inge-: I would think so, but please speak [08:59:32] hyc: yes [09:00:28] linzhi-sonia: i am curious to hear your thoughts. I am fairly new to this space myself... [09:00:51] oh [09:00:56] we are grandpas, and grandmas [09:01:36] yet I have no problem understanding why ASICS are currently reviled. [09:01:48] xmr's main differentiators to, let's say btc, are anonymity and fungibility [09:01:58] I find the client terribly slow btw [09:02:21] and I think the asic-forking since last may is wrong, doesn't create value and doesn't help with the project objectives [09:02:25] which "the client" ? [09:02:52] Monero GUI client maybe [09:03:12] MacOS, yes [09:03:28] What exactly is slow? [09:03:30] linzhi-sonia: I run my own node, and use the CLI and Monerujo. Have not had issues. [09:03:49] staying in sync [09:03:49] linzhi-sonia: decentralization is also a key principle [09:03:56] one that Bitcoin has failed to maintain [09:04:39] hmm [09:05:00] looks fairly decentralized to me. decentralization is the result of 3 goals imo: resilient, trustless, permissionless [09:05:28] don't ask a hardware maker about physical decentralization. that's too ideological. we focus on logical decentralization. [09:06:11] physical decentralization is important. with bulk of bitnoin mining centered on Chinese hydroelectric dams [09:06:19] have you thought about including block data in the PoW? [09:06:41] yes, of course. [09:07:39] is that already in an algo? [09:08:10] hyc: about "centered on chinese hydro" - what is your source? the best paper I know is this: https://coinshares.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Mining-Whitepaper-Final.pdf [09:09:01] linzhi-sonia: do you mine on your ASICs before you sell them? [09:09:13] besides testing of course [09:09:45] that paper puts Chinese btc miners at 60% max [09:10:05] tevador: I think everybody learned that that is not healthy long-term! [09:10:16] because it gives the chipmaker a cost advantage over its own customers [09:10:33] and cost advantage leads to centralization (physical and logical) [09:10:51] you guys should know who finances progpow and why :) [09:11:05] but let's not get into this, ha ha. want to keep the channel civilized. right OhGodAGirl ? :) [09:11:34] tevador: so the answer is no! 100% and definitely no [09:11:54] that "self-mining" disease was one of the problems we have now with asics, and their bad reputation (rightfully so) [09:13:08] I plan to write a nice short 2-page paper or so on our chip design process. maybe it's interesting to some people here. [09:13:15] basically the 5 steps I mentioned before, from math to physical [09:13:32] linzhi-sonia: the paper you linked puts 48% of bitcoin mining in Sichuan. the total in China is much more than 60% [09:13:38] need to run it by a few people to fix bugs, will post it here when published [09:14:06] hyc: ok! I am just sharing the "best" document I know today. it definitely may be wrong and there may be a better one now. [09:14:18] hyc: if you see some reports, please share [09:14:51] hey I am really curious about this: where is a PoW algo that puts block data into the PoW? [09:15:02] the previous paper I read is from here http://hackingdistributed.com/2018/01/15/decentralization-bitcoin-ethereum/ [09:15:38] hyc: you said that already exists? (block data in PoW) [09:15:45] it would make verification harder [09:15:49] linzhi-sonia: https://the-eye.eu/public/Books/campdivision.com/PDF/Computers%20General/Privacy/bitcoin/meh/hashimoto.pdf [09:15:51] but for chips it would be interesting [09:15:52] we discussed the possibility about a year ago https://www.reddit.com/Monero/comments/8bshrx/what_we_need_to_know_about_proof_of_work_pow/ [09:16:05] oh good links! thanks! need to read... [09:16:06] I think that paper by dryja was original [09:17:53] since we have a nice flow - second question I'm very curious about: has anyone thought about in-protocol rewards for other functions? [09:18:55] we've discussed micropayments for wallets to use remote nodes [09:18:55] you know there is a lot of work in other coins about STARK provers, zero-knowledge, etc. many of those things very compute intense, or need to be outsourced to a service (zether). For chipmakers, in-protocol rewards create an economic incentive to accelerate those things. [09:19:50] whenever there is an in-protocol reward, you may get the power of ASICs doing something you actually want to happen [09:19:52] it would be nice if there was some economic reward for running a fullnode, but no one has come up with much more than that afaik [09:19:54] instead of fighting them off [09:20:29] you need to use asics, not fight them. that's an obvious thing to say for an asicmaker... [09:20:41] in-protocol rewards can be very powerful [09:20:50] like I said before - unless the ASICs are so useful they're embedded in every smartphone, I dont see them being a positive for decentralization [09:21:17] if they're a separate product, the average consumer is not going to buy them [09:21:20] now I was talking about speedup of verifying, signing, proving, etc. [09:21:23] they won't even know what they are [09:22:07] if anybody wants to talk about or design in-protocol rewards, please come talk to us [09:22:08] the average consumer also doesn't use general purpose hardware to secure blockchains either [09:22:14] not just for PoW, in fact *NOT* for PoW [09:22:32] it requires sw/hw co-design [09:23:10] we are in long-term discussions/collaboration over this with Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash. just talk right now. [09:23:16] this was recently published though suggesting more uptake though I guess https://btcmanager.com/college-students-are-the-second-biggest-miners-of-cryptocurrency/ [09:23:29] I find it pretty hard to believe their numbers [09:24:03] well [09:24:09] sorry, original article: https://www.pcmag.com/news/366952/college-kids-are-using-campus-electricity-to-mine-crypto [09:24:11] just talk, no? rumors [09:24:18] college students are already more educated than the average consumer [09:24:29] we are not seeing many such customers anymore [09:24:30] it's data from cisco monitoring network traffic