All anti-ASIC methods have kinda flopped, right? So instead of overcomplicating with algorithms, why not create a coin that adjusts rewards based on mining difficulty? More zeros in the hash, smaller reward. This way, miners can tweak supply and it benefits efficient rigs over just raw power. Might impact security a bit, but does that matter? What do you all think?
I don’t quite get your idea. Bitcoin already has rules similar to what you suggest. Miners use chips that are way more efficient than CPUs or GPUs. They might not multitask, but they get the job done faster. Remember when we could mine with regular hardware? Those days are long gone.
So you’re saying "more zeros" equals higher difficulty, which means lower rewards, right? I’ve seen this in older altcoins, often mixed with PoS like Peercoin. At first glance, it sounds decent, but it could lead to more issues than benefits. If prices drop, the coin becomes inflationary. Less interest from miners means easier hash rates. That can really mess things up.
But how does that really stop ASICs? They’re just more efficient. Lowering rewards for everyone won’t change that. Really depends if we even want ASIC resistance in the first place.
They could try to make it harder for ASICs by designing algorithms where they don’t have major advantages over CPUs or GPUs. Regular updates to the algorithm could also keep ASICs on their toes, making them less efficient.
Check out RandomX! No one’s gonna build ASICs for it because you need almost a full CPU to mine effectively. Even the so-called "ASIC" from Bitmain turned out to be a bunch of regular CPUs. It’s still possible to mine Monero with just our home setups.
Test networks like testnet3 are not failing at being friendly to CPUs. Instead, they show that both CPUs and ASICs can work together. If you want better rewards, you need to put in more power to secure the network. CPU miners can actually benefit from this.
Why would that be? Last I saw, testnet3 was trading at a tiny fraction of BTC. There’s still enough incentive for people to use it, yet ASICs are still dominating. Not everyone is mining CPU-only blocks. If the incentives were strong enough, we’d see way more blocks mined.
There’s more to it than just the price of testnet3 coins. Airdrops can create buzz around the coins, leading many to try out their services. Some even give rewards for using testnet3. The question is, how far will people go for profit?
That’s not an ASIC. It’s just a collection of standard CPUs. Making a CPU like Intel or AMD for mining isn’t easy unless you have tons of cash. Even if they optimize a CPU for a specific algorithm, is it still a true CPU?
Monero’s been hard-forking to combat ASIC centralization, but RandomX is still holding strong since 2019. There’s no way to profitably create specialized hardware for it without major backing. Competition is fine, but ASICs just ruin decentralization.
You’d be surprised. Back in 2020, Apple’s M1 beat Intel in performance! CPUs are bloated, and for mining, you only need a subset of functionality. So an ASIC could form if the profit motive is strong enough.
Been coding in Assembly for decades. If you think making an ASIC for RandomX is doable, you need to look deeper into how it’s structured. It demands lots of regular CPU components, making it tough for companies to create a specialized chip.
I think balancing rewards with difficulty could boost efficiency and decentralization. But I wonder how that might play out for long-term security and what miners will actually want.