Jump to content
Dmitrii

Neoscrypt ASIC's and CHI coin - the price must go up or go down?

Recommended Posts

Hi to all the XAYA community! What do you think about ASIC's miner on neoscrypt algo? It can a big trouble in future, as I think..

When Neoscrypt pools will be work, many coins can accumulate on few hands and decentralization will be not work, price CHI can goes down.

One ASICminer working like 100 card 1080Ti.. IF XAYA was resistant to Neoscrypt asic's would you be happy?

It would add honesty to mining CHI and be positive to price CHI..

 

the developers told me that they can apply resistance to ASICs if the community deems it necessary,

please Express your opinion, thank you!

 

Edited by Dmitrii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The official release points out that new Bittech NS miner’s performance makes 63.2MH/s (equivalent to 55 Nvidia GTX1080 GPUs), power consumption is only 1250W, the price is $1,890, while the earning power is $30 as of August 29.

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/08/28/1557351/0/en/BITTECH-Offers-the-world-first-miner-for-NeoScrypt-algorithm.html

I'd look at it like this (compare at equal power consumption):

I get ~0.64 MH/s at ~125 W from a gtx1060 I bought for ~$300. So I could buy 10 gtx1060s, run them at 1250 W for $3k and get 6.4 MH/s.

Or get 10 gtx1080s which (guesstimating, don't have one to test) would be ~ 11.5 MH/s for ~$5.5k at similar power usage. If those stats can be trusted, these neoscrypt asics are 5-10x faster with 0.66-0.33x lower upfront cost than the usual GPUs.

 

 

Edited by DarkClaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the neoscrypt ASIC news, Xaya should change the POW algo to a more ASIC resistant one.

Probably x16s, x17, Cryptonightv7(monero) or ProgPOW? Any other algos out there?

Here is a summary from ProgPOW:

https://github.com/ifdefelse/ProgPOW

 

Edited by game
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guys - keep the discussion going for algo change.

We know it's a losing battle - but we want to keep then non sha256 algo to be asic resistant for the foreseeable future.

list some algos you think may be best and we'll try to get it in for the hardfork after the sale

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my 2 satoshis, but...

It may be useful to consider using multiple algorithms in sequence. 

5 hours ago, game said:

Probably x16s, x17, Cryptonightv7(monero) or ProgPOW? Any other algos out there?

So, for example from that, run x16s + x17 + ProgPOW in series. If any 1 of them has an ASIC, it won't really matter that much as you'd still need to use the other 2. The question then is about whether or not you can actually use hardware and transfer data between hardware (ASIC hardware and regular hardware) quicker than simply running the ASIC'd algo on the regular hardware. 

It could work as entropy increases with multiple iterations of an encryption algorithm, and similar increase with iterations of different algorithms. For entropy to decrease with additional iterations would be very strange. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many know already my opinion on this, but let me just state it here once more for those who do not:  I believe that all this "ASIC resistance" stuff is both impossible to achieve and also not really relevant.  ASICs will always be built as long as it is economically feasible, and there's nothing that can be done against it except for changing the algorithm over and over again.  And especially for Xaya, there is no real harm in having ASICs on the network - since the majority of hash rate is in merged mining anyway, it would not even hurt security (much) if a single guy with an ASIC controlled all the stand-alone mining.

However, I agree that it may be useful for community purposes (even if there is no technical reason) to allow people with GPUs (including gamers) to mine Xaya.  Implementing an algo change is not too hard, as long as we decide on what it should be and there's an existing simple C/C++ implementation that we can just plug into Xaya - so I'm happy to do this.

Please keep in mind that there are many altcoin projects whose only "innovation" is a change in mining / ASIC-resistance - think of Litecoin (which was the number-two cryptocurrency for a long time) or Bitcoin Gold (the second-largest Bitcoin fork, behind only a project that didn't even add something and just removed features).  It is clear that those projects keep talking about how important the details of the mining algorithm are and how fancy their algorithms are.  In contrast, we at Xaya have real blockchain innovations to concentrate on, so that the mining algorithm is only a minor detail in my opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For now there are many algo really are ASIC resistance,  c11, x16r, x16s!

ASIC's for such algorithms wold be not economically justified 

ASIC's is bad thing for new cryptocurrency coins!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense to have both an ASIC merged mining (SHA256 as now) and a CPU/GPU (as much ASIC resistant as possible) algo.

The second will be very welcome by those gamers who use GPUs and could use those from time to time to earn a few Xaya. ?

It seems a win/win strategy for mining as originally designed by Xaya. Also its a good time to replace Neoscrypt by a new one.

This second algo could be rotated every few months if needed to discourage ASICs.

Edited by game
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, game said:

This second algo could be rotated every few months if needed to discourage ASICs.

This seems like the best solution. There is an arms race here and in the end using a mixture of dozens or even hundreds of algos would be most resistant to ASICs, eventually the device would need to be so general purpose that you may as well use a GPU.

I wonder how hard it is for the coin devs to swap algos though.

12 hours ago, domob said:

Many know already my opinion on this, but let me just state it here once more for those who do not:  I believe that all this "ASIC resistance" stuff is both impossible to achieve and also not really relevant.  ASICs will always be built as long as it is economically feasible, and there's nothing that can be done against it except for changing the algorithm over and over again. 

Don't you mention the solution in your last sentence? What is wrong with it? I can see why introducing new algos would require forking, but do you think this plan wouldn't work if a bunch algos were defined ahead of time?

Edited by DarkClaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DarkClaw said:

I wonder how hard it is for the coin devs to swap algos though.

Apart from managing the associated fork, this is not very hard - assuming, of course, that the algorithm we want to use is readily available as free code we can just use.  And of course by doing so, the complexity of the codebase grows forever - every algorithm that was ever used needs to stay in the code forever.  That's the main thing I want to avoid if it is not really necessary.

8 hours ago, DarkClaw said:

Don't you mention the solution in your last sentence? What is wrong with it? I can see why introducing new algos would require forking, but do you think this plan wouldn't work if a bunch algos were defined ahead of time?

I'm not sure which last sentence you mean, TBH.  But if you mean the general idea of rotating algos, then yes, in principle that's a solution - but it comes with a cost, namely ever-increasing code complexity (and maintenance burden) and regular forks.  My opinion is that it is not a "no brainer" (as many seem to think) to trade this for the dubious benefit of being ASIC-free for a couple of months.  But as I said previously, if the general consensus is that it is worth this cost, then I'm happy to implement it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, domob said:

I'm not sure which last sentence you mean, TBH. 

I was referring to "there's nothing that can be done against it except for changing the algorithm over and over again."  But I don't mean this in the usual way that requires hard forks.

Say you pick 10 asic-resistant algos and in the xaya code rotate the mining algo every 1000 blocks or whatever. Now a single (slow but flexible) gpu would be competing against ten (fast but inflexible) asics. Basically you have just multiplied the startup cost for using asics by 10x.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DarkClaw said:

I was referring to "there's nothing that can be done against it except for changing the algorithm over and over again."  But I don't mean this in the usual way that requires hard forks.

Say you pick 10 asic-resistant algos and in the xaya code rotate the mining algo every 1000 blocks or whatever. Now a single (slow but flexible) gpu would be competing against ten (fast but inflexible) asics. Basically you have just multiplied the startup cost for using asics by 10x.

Yeah, that is true - although it would at least give the ASIC manufacturers an advance warning of all algorithms at once.

But honestly, I think at the moment that forks are not too costly for a small network like Xaya (at least if done once or twice per year, not every week).  So to me the most important aspect of the "cost" side for changing algorithms is the future maintenance burden that is imposed.  Thus I think we should go for a single algo change rather than adding ten algorithms immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dmitrii said:

Please, consider C11 algo, the most honest for GPU at this moment

do you have some links and information for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also a version of ProgPOW (the latest in ASIC resistance algos) already incorporated into a coin, Bitcoininterest.

https://github.com/BitcoinInterestOfficial/ProgPOW

https://www.bitcoininterest.io/

I believe its the first coin integrating this ASIC resistant algo. It could be worth to research if it is a good match for Xaya.

I am not a user or miner of that coin but have read good things about the ProgPOW algo, which is really the latest attempt at ASIC resistance.

I believe Xaya has very experienced developers able to choose the best algo for GPU able to ASIC resist for a year or even more in order to reduce the code maintenance and number of forks needed in the future as domob explained.

I am not a fan of any specific algo but just trying to help make the best choice possible in order to reduce the number of changes in the future.

Edited by game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, game said:
Quote

 

As such, RandomJS makes the compute process more complex, seeking to use CPU functionality in a more holistic way, by using blockchain data as the inputs to generate random code.

"We take an input, which is the previous block hash, and we use that as a seed for a pseudo-random number generator," Chu explained.

This data then generates randomized algorithms written in javascript, which when run by the participating computers, are then hashed and added to the blockchain.

 

From here, it looks like its generating a random input to the blake2 algo. I guess I don't see why you can't make an asic to do that. They say:

Quote

The algorithm internally uses a Javascript engine, which is a large software package that can take advantage of CPU features such as branch prediction, caching and out-of-order execution. Full hardware implementation would require an enormous investment.

https://github.com/tevador/RandomJS

So the real "resistance" is not really about the randomness, it's coming from having javascript in the pipeline?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow Sha256d ASICS
Disallow Neoscrypt ASICS.

This way GPU miners are not at a disadvantage. (Except  Watt per hash, but that is a choice the person makes imo.)
The difficulty between both bitstreams even eachother out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Your use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.