asic resistance has always been a lie. you can always make ASICS that fit any criteria you throw at it.
Discussion
I think idea is to therefore change the the criteria you throw at the miners. But yes, agree it’s “in theory” and could end up with someone who cracks it whilst the rest of us are unaware.
The main thing is bitcoin would never change its mining algorithm as that would be a pretty serious hardfork and it wouldn’t be bitcoin anymore.
So if one miner who has 50,000 machines at 1 trx can solve blocks solo faster than a pool that holds 25%?
Well, if it is not clear written, then here is the question.
how many numbers "Nonce" can one miner with 10 TRH/S on board in 600 seconds?
Has anyone counted it?
it seems that this is not so little, but if we soon see an increase in this number to 64 bits, then someone already knows what's going on! ))))
-What I want to say with this... If there is a restriction somewhere, it will be used against whoever came up with it.
it seems that it is impossible to go through 4,000,000,000 options in 15 seconds, then you don't understand mining)))
Exactly, a general purpose CPU will always be outcompeted by an ASIC on a specific task
Do ASICS exist for RandomX (genuine question)?
So if one miner who has 50,000 machines at 1 trx can solve blocks solo faster than a pool that holds 25%?
Well, if it is not clear written, then here is the question.
how many numbers "Nonce" can one miner with 10 TRH/S on board in 600 seconds?
Has anyone counted it?
it seems that this is not so little, but if we soon see an increase in this number to 64 bits, then someone already knows what's going on! ))))
-What I want to say with this... If there is a restriction somewhere, it will be used against whoever came up with it.
it seems that it is impossible to go through 4,000,000,000 options in 15 seconds, then you don't understand mining)))
It comes down to economics. If there was a randomx coin that became more valuable then bitcoin the hardware would follow. It might be slightly more difficult than straight sha256, but if there’s money to be made by having a huge advantage then of course ASICS would be built.
This reminds me of a question I asked on the bitcoin stack exchange in 2014 😅
Some more replies there:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/20364/asics-and-large-memory-requirements
Cant believe that was 9 years ago. I feel old …
It’s good to keep asking these questions though :-)
Interesting read ta. It would be a risky endeavor to invest in building an ASIC if you knew the intention of the developers is to be ASIC resistant and could amend the algorithm (although appreciate that would mean frequent hard-forks).
yup, that probably contributes more to asic resistance than the actual algorithm which wouldn’t even really matter at that point. It would also probably also kill the economics because coins that hardfork go to 0 a lot quicker, not to mention all shitcoins go to 0 eventually.
I’m assuming that such changes to the algorithm would result in a change in the consensus rules and therefore would necessarily be a hard fork, is that correct?
So if one miner who has 50,000 machines at 1 trx can solve blocks solo faster than a pool that holds 25%?
Well, if it is not clear written, then here is the question.
how many numbers "Nonce" can one miner with 10 TRH/S on board in 600 seconds?
Has anyone counted it?
it seems that this is not so little, but if we soon see an increase in this number to 64 bits, then someone already knows what's going on! ))))
-What I want to say with this... If there is a restriction somewhere, it will be used against whoever came up with it.
it seems that it is impossible to go through 4,000,000,000 options in 15 seconds, then you don't understand mining)))