Create account

replied 2032d
owning over 50% of all coins must be really difficult
1 / 17 1
replied 2032d
Not that difficult if you have a printing press :D
replied 2032d
haha damn that fucking elite :D
1
replied 2032d
Either way, both has tradeoffs. What I personally prefer is the non-asic pow approach.
replied 2032d
It is always possible to rent the majority Hash through renting the hash through paying out over-market-value pool rewards, cost of attack is proportional to mining reward.
1
replied 2032d
Not really with widely available general purpose hw.
replied 2032d
If the total mining reward is $100k per day someone with that amount of money can set up a pool and buy it by paying that money in return for the POW in whatever form it is in.
1
replied 2032d
I think this attack would be way too uncertain. This is why banksters choose to subvert Core and the communication channels.
replied 2032d
I agree that it is not a good attack, it is expensive and seems criminal from the outside, and does not ultimately give the ability to bend the coin in a desired direction.
3
1
2,048
replied 2032d
Also, using general purpose hw is inherently more decentralized, enabling small scale mining which would make pulling off something like that successfully a lot harder.
replied 2032d
General Purpose Hardware is by default more decentralized due to there not being monopolies or barriers to entry. This is a side point, but do you favor BCH changing the mining Algo?
2
replied 2031d
I think the algo should have been changed by now. BCH would be in a lot stronger position.
1
2,222
Ignis
replied 2031d
Its possible you are just over predicting.
2
10,599
replied 2031d
Do not change the BCH algo.
Start a new coin with a mining algo that Asic technology cannot address.
There exist many ways to achieve that.
replied 2031d
The bch community looks at the algo change just like how the useful idiots of Coretards looked at the capacity increase back then. We'll see where this attitude leads...
replied 2031d
Changing the algo is not conceivable for BCH.
Getting consensus would be impossible.
(context: Just fixing the DAA reads like a civil war story.)
Build better faster on new turf.
replied 2031d
"Changing the algo is not conceivable for BCH."

Well, not with that attitude.
replied 2031d
Trying to fix the difficulty algo with such low relative hashrate is just pathetic and blatantly retarded.
replied 2032d
Is there a known way to prevent ASICs from being made? I know Monero is trying by frequently changing or randomizing the algorithm itself, but there is still the problem of pools.
1
replied 2032d
Easy. with pow algo updates if needed. Bitmain learned swiftly to not develop asics for monero after their first attempt to fuck up the network.
replied 2032d
pools are not much of a problem as they don't control the HW. ASICs inherently bring centralization pressure.
replied 2032d
ASIC bring additional centralization pressure without imposing a cost on the maker of the ASIC, it rewards the ASIC maker, it makes centralization even more profitable.
4
5,120
replied 2032d
...which is why Monero switched to RandomX, making ASICs virtually impossible
replied 2032d
A malicious pool can pay to rent the POW by whoever has the general purpose HW and do what they want with it, there is no need to actually own any hardware, ASIC or otherwise to get-
replied 2032d
-Majority POW power, all it takes is paying above market rate to rent the hash in a pool. There is no way around that. However, there are non-51% attack reasons why ASICs are bad.
1
1
replied 2032d
And ASICs still has the rent problem + additional issues, so it is no better at some things and worse at other things.


About Privacy Terms Stats