Posts made by Vigil

When is the expected Grand Opening of UNOCS?

Won’t let me enter.

So which pool should we be mining on?

[quote name=“aysyr” post=“21253” timestamp=“1373554271”]
[quote author=Vigil link=topic=2703.msg21248#msg21248 date=1373552283]
[quote author=Entimp link=topic=2703.msg21243#msg21243 date=1373550788]
But flat screen TV’s are not made tailored to the user. They are generic and mass produced. ASIC’s don’t get made that way. A BitCoin ASIC won’t mine another flavour of coin hash, or BitCoin itself of they change the algorithm sufficiently.
[/quote]

That doesn’t have anything to do with it. Telephones initially only made phone calls, then there was voice messaging, then there was caller ID, then there were cellphones, and then smartphones. TVs initially only had 1 or 2 channels and nothing else to do with them. ASICs are giving more hash/$, reducing size, reducing energy consumption, etc. ASICs will actually help distribute hashing power, eventually. Maybe not right now because it is a new technology and we haven’t reached the periphery adoption period yet, but nor have we reached such adoption with Bitcoin either.
[/quote]

Then they wouldn’t be ASICS, they’d be some mega bad-ass computing device or an ultra-efficient graphics card. If they can be used for more than one purpose, it wouldn’t be an ASIC.
[/quote]

It doesn’t need to do more than one thing. That is beside the point. But they may eventually be able to do more than one algorithm. The only thing an ASIC needs to do is perform its task more efficiently and effectively than previous technology - it is weighed on those merits alone. It is too difficult from our vantage point to know how ASICs will develop in the future or what they will incorporate.

[quote name=“Entimp” post=“21243” timestamp=“1373550788”]
But flat screen TV’s are not made tailored to the user. They are generic and mass produced. ASIC’s don’t get made that way. A BitCoin ASIC won’t mine another flavour of coin hash, or BitCoin itself of they change the algorithm sufficiently.
[/quote]

That doesn’t have anything to do with it. Telephones initially only made phone calls, then there was voice messaging, then there was caller ID, then there were cellphones, and then smartphones. TVs initially only had 1 or 2 channels and nothing else to do with them. ASICs are giving more hash/$, reducing size, reducing energy consumption, etc. ASICs will actually help distribute hashing power, eventually. Maybe not right now because it is a new technology and we haven’t reached the periphery adoption period yet, but nor have we reached such adoption with Bitcoin either.

[quote name=“zerodrama” post=“21241” timestamp=“1373549785”]
[quote author=Vigil link=topic=2703.msg21239#msg21239 date=1373549538]
ASICs are good. Trying to prevent your coin from ASICs is a stupid idea.
[/quote]

ASICs are not good when all you have is dumping to fiat. Contrary to claims, ASICs are overpriced and do not adapt to changes in the future.

You can’t have ASICs without a solid market and that means paying rent with FTC.

FPGAs will be good though.
[/quote]You are talking about a current situation, the use of ASICs will not always result in that. Currently, ASICs are priced high - that is the same with any technology initially. Soon enough this technology will become much cheaper as competitors move in and more user-friendly. Look at flat screen TVs - they initially cost $10,000, now they can be purchased for $100s to $1000s and many people have them of varying socio-economic levels.

ASICs are good. Trying to prevent your coin from ASICs is a stupid idea. There is no such thing as technology advancements which which put capabilities in less people’s hands. It is the other way around. Did dedicated phone technology allow only rich people to have portable phones? Did dedicated PC technology allow only IBM and large institutions to have large processing power? The ASIC argument shows a complete lack of understanding of free markets and consumer (periphery) technological adoption.

Sounds awesome.

[quote name=“Nutnut” post=“20596” timestamp=“1373304310”]
WHEN asics hit GPU mining will be pointless. At present even my kids can mine a few coins here and there but once ASICs hits it will only be the hardcore miners willing to toss a couple of grand in that will be mining.

ASICs are as the name suggests Application Specific so unlike a £1500 gaming rig that can be used to skype aunty mary or send her an email, asics are for one thing only. Trying to get the Mrs to agree to that will be harder so my guess is that 90% of the miners here will stop mining scrypt and find another coin or toss in the towel all together.

Whilst i know they’re coming, i don’t like them. They take the fun and accessibility out of mining…

Let’s also not forget that when they are launched they are as rare as the proverbial rocking horse sh… The rich get richer…
[/quote]At the end of the day they will make mining more accessible. This is common sense. There is no such thing as technology which makes things less accessible. Even current ASICs mine cheaper than GPUs - it is less expensive to mine now, not more.

ASICs are a benefit not a negative. Mining at this point already involves purchasing expensive video cards - 1000s of dollars worth. ASICs reduce the costs and improve efficiencies in power consumption. Saying that ASICs are a hindrance to decentralization of mining is like saying that the PC was a hindrance to personal computing. Some of you need to listen to Clay Christensen.

When next week? what does it involve?

PXC: PsuR2g6peW3CAuZRYy2zeTPYmGM7A7FwWu
WDC: Wamrf4CfYXS4WpB4z8HoekWKunNRJPXjJs
FTC: 6wSe6LSTXPPn1cqKYQQZckAVh7XysNMPUJ

Question:

Say the difficulty rises and a block is generated under that difficulty… that block is stuck at that difficulty, correct? There is no way to change it?

[quote name=“vipertsniper” post=“16426” timestamp=“1371650605”]
[quote author=Vigil link=topic=1741.msg16424#msg16424 date=1371650189]
[quote author=sl1982 link=topic=1741.msg16414#msg16414 date=1371648408]
Thats not how it works at all. If you have a dynamic difficulty of every block I can just on the network for 10 minutes with a ton of hashpower and jack up the difficulty so much that if will take you hours to find a block. Once you finally do I can jump on again for a little while.

See this article for example of what happened to Terracoin
[url=http://cryptojunky.com/blog/2013/04/15/terracoin-price-recovering-following-technical-problems/]http://cryptojunky.com/blog/2013/04/15/terracoin-price-recovering-following-technical-problems/[/url]
[/quote]

I don’t know. I don’t think what you are talking about is the same as what I am talking about.

Good comments from SixGun. Yes, it has to be independent of the miners. That is what I was trying to get at - regardless of hashing power we need to always hit the block time target.
[/quote]

“See this article for example of what happened to Terracoin
[url=http://cryptojunky.com/blog/2013/04/15/terracoin-price-recovering-following-technical-problems/]http://cryptojunky.com/blog/2013/04/15/terracoin-price-recovering-following-technical-problems”

isnt this pretty much whats happening now to ftc?
[/quote]

I know about TRC. You just posted that article. If you read what I am saying you will see that the difficulty can never adjust the block time to anything but 2.5 minutes. With TRC the massive jump in Hash power caused the retarget to a much higher difficulty and then it took a long time for retarget. In my case, as soon as the high hasher jumps on the difficulty adjusts to maintain 2.5 minutes and as soon as he leaves the difficulty adjusts again to 2.5 minute block time. So, for a simple example, after 2.5 minutes and no solved block, the difficulty would adjust to the last known 2.5 minute block time difficulty prior to the jump. It could make the difficulty adjustment based on estimating the hash rate differential through the current block time and past block times and the target block time.

It would be even better to control all mining shares within the protocol to keep him from jumping on in the first place, in addition to the above.

Edit: Ahhh, but the difficulty of the current block can’t be changed… is that what you are saying?

[quote name=“sl1982” post=“16414” timestamp=“1371648408”]
Thats not how it works at all. If you have a dynamic difficulty of every block I can just on the network for 10 minutes with a ton of hashpower and jack up the difficulty so much that if will take you hours to find a block. Once you finally do I can jump on again for a little while.

See this article for example of what happened to Terracoin
[url=http://cryptojunky.com/blog/2013/04/15/terracoin-price-recovering-following-technical-problems/]http://cryptojunky.com/blog/2013/04/15/terracoin-price-recovering-following-technical-problems/[/url]
[/quote]

I don’t know. I don’t think what you are talking about is the same as what I am talking about.

Good comments from SixGun. Yes, it has to be independent of the miners. That is what I was trying to get at - regardless of hashing power we need to always hit the block time target.

[quote name=“sl1982” post=“16400” timestamp=“1371645766”]
Not a good idea. This can allow people to sabotage the coin with very little effort. If someone had enough hashpower they could jack the difficulty up a ton without staying on the network very long. This has happened to another coin, cant remember what one.
[/quote]

They would have to stay on the network because once they left it would readjust. And they wouldn’t benefit anything. That would limit the miners on the network to exactly what was needed. But I think the difficulty rise should affect those who jump on in excess of the required miners. There needs to be a way to tell the late comers or the jumpers “there is no room for you right now, please mine another coin.” If that cannot be done then difficulty jumps will just persist and the coin growth will be retarded.

In a real life mining operation, random miners can’t just show up all of a sudden and start digging in your mine. They need to find another source which is not being mined. The problem with altcoins is that they did not mature in the vacuum that BTC did. BTC didn’t have another coin to compete with. With all the alts you just jump around to which ever is providing the greatest profitability and naturally you will get difficulty swings. The hardware and software which perfrom the mining also developed in pace with BTC price, acceptance, etc. This is not the case with Alts - the hashing power is already there, sometimes idle and ready to jump around.

There should be a “Share” allocation. Each coin has so many mining sites or shares which solve the blocks. The number of potential shares will be tied to the amount of hashes required to meet the block times. There can be no more hashing power on the network than that which is capable of meeting the block requirements - there can be less but not more. If there is less then the difficulty decreases to meet the block time target.

Altcoins need to function a bit differently than BTC.

[quote name=“renat0” post=“16396” timestamp=“1371645059”]
[quote author=Vigil link=topic=1741.msg16393#msg16393 date=1371644739]
Why not just let it adjust in real time to maintain the proper blocks per minute regardless of hashing power or re-target estimates and all this BS?
[/quote]
+1 on that or something like retarget every 10 blocks or so. I think it’d be better retarget every single block so it’d be live
[/quote]
That is what I mean - retarget every block. That way the people who stay mining it will benefit when others jump ship. There is no benefit to mine continuously at this point. How often does TRC retarget?

Why not just let it adjust in real time to maintain the proper blocks per minute regardless of hashing power or re-target estimates and all this BS?

What happens if ATI/AMD alters their APP in the future and no longer is efficient at scrypt mining?

Don’t do either of those things. The chain is forked as it is.