5 ms·

To achieve asic resistance, why not switch between a large pool of different algorithms sequentially, with their order and various parameters determined by the

To achieve asic resistance, why not switch between a large pool of different algorithms sequentially, with their order and various parameters determined by the hash of the previous block?

latchkey 8y ago
There is Verge, which does this. https://vergecurrency.com/faq/mining/ https://vergecurrency.com/faq/mining/
- mrgordon 8y ago
  Actually Verge does the algorithms in order so it’s more predictable. x16r aka Ravencoin is what the poster was describing
Taek 8y ago
You could make one asic that supports all algorithms, and re-uses parts that overlap, or you could even create one asic per algorithm. This substantially increases the amount of design effort required, which puts it rather out of reach for smaller companies. But Bitmain could easily pull together a design effort of that scale, so they are even further advantaged there.
- JoeCoder_ 8y ago
  Wouldn't an ASIC capable of executing hundreds of types of algorithms more or less just be a GPU anyway? At that point why not just use GPUs?
thinkmassive 8y ago
Based on the article, it wouldn’t be difficult to design an ASIC that handles multiple algorithms and accepts parameters for each. For mining chip manufacturers the gamble of choosing a few algorithms to support, especially if constraints are promised at the start of the PoW launch, can have favorable odds. There’s only so many PoW algorithms from which to choose.
mrgordon 8y ago
You just described x16r aka Ravencoin, developed by Overstock.com for ASIC resistance
dagw 8y ago
Serious question. Why is ASIC resistance a good or desirable quality for crypto currencies to strive for?
- lopatin 8y ago
  One reason to stop it I guess is to prevent a small group of miners from carrying out a 51% attack.
  - aiCeivi9 8y ago
    Doesn't it achieve opposite effect? All smaller, non ASIC resistant currencies can be bullied by someone with a lot of (rented) PCs. Ignore 51% attack, just sudden changes in difficulty & time between blocks would introduce chaos.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      ASICs are specialized equipment which usually costs a lot. That leads to centralization, which is not something you want for a cryptocoin. Just look at bitcoin with their four people controlling a majority of hashpower.
- croon 8y ago
  Why is proof of work a desirable quality? I believe the answers to both questions are the same. If something designed to be hard can be made easy, you lose whatever goal you wanted to achieve by the former.
- _nalply 8y ago
  The majority of miners are not a lot more than hobbyists. I am, too. They prefer GPU mining because they know GPUs better than ASICs and because GPUs are more flexible than ASICs. The barrier of entrance to mining is lower. Additionally, imagine you bought GPUs. Then of course you are going to oppose to changes destroying the profitability of your GPUs. If you then read about someone writing about ASICs fostering centralisation, you'll be inclined to approve such statements. However ironically it has been shown that quite possibly GPU mining is more prone to centralisation attacks than ASIC mining.
simias 8y ago
As TFA points out no matter how ASIC-resistant you try to make your PoW algorithm you're just delaying the inevitable. If any of these cryptocurrencies actually manages to become the currency of the future the incentive to increase the hash-rate-per-kW by a few percents to be worth it. Having a pool of different algorithms might improve the difficulty but it will also make it tricky to audit all algorithms for vulnerabilities. On top of that an ASIC might not have to implement all algorithms, they could idle and only spring into action when an algorithm they implement is selected for instance. The main point of the article stands, no matter how complicated you make your algorithm a special-purpose solution will always be more efficient than a general-purpose one, it's just a matter of balancing the cost of developing the ASIC vs. the expected return. If, as the article points out, developing chips for minor cryptocurrencies using ASIC-resistant PoW is cost-effective I can't imagine how anybody could hope to design as ASIC-resistant cryptocurrency designed to become the currency of the future. Think about it, in the unlikely scenario where a PoW cryptocoin eventually replaces the dollar the mining rewards will quickly amount to billions of dollars. The incentive to get an edge, no matter how small, would be tremendous. An alternative scheme would be to change the change the PoW algorithm regularly like the article says Monero is doing, but then you give a huge amount of power to the people selecting the next PoW. Consider how incredibly tempting it would be to develop an ASIC for some PoW algorithm and then have it selected by Monero, you'd have a huge head start.

To achieve asic resistance, why not switch between a large pool of different algorithms sequentially, with their order and various parameters determined by the hash of the previous block?

latchkey 8y ago

There is Verge, which does this. https://vergecurrency.com/faq/mining/ https://vergecurrency.com/faq/mining/

mrgordon 8y ago
Actually Verge does the algorithms in order so it’s more predictable. x16r aka Ravencoin is what the poster was describing

Taek 8y ago

You could make one asic that supports all algorithms, and re-uses parts that overlap, or you could even create one asic per algorithm. This substantially increases the amount of design effort required, which puts it rather out of reach for smaller companies. But Bitmain could easily pull together a design effort of that scale, so they are even further advantaged there.

JoeCoder_ 8y ago
Wouldn't an ASIC capable of executing hundreds of types of algorithms more or less just be a GPU anyway? At that point why not just use GPUs?

thinkmassive 8y ago

Based on the article, it wouldn’t be difficult to design an ASIC that handles multiple algorithms and accepts parameters for each. For mining chip manufacturers the gamble of choosing a few algorithms to support, especially if constraints are promised at the start of the PoW launch, can have favorable odds. There’s only so many PoW algorithms from which to choose.

mrgordon 8y ago

You just described x16r aka Ravencoin, developed by Overstock.com for ASIC resistance

dagw 8y ago

Serious question. Why is ASIC resistance a good or desirable quality for crypto currencies to strive for?

lopatin 8y ago
One reason to stop it I guess is to prevent a small group of miners from carrying out a 51% attack.
- aiCeivi9 8y ago
  Doesn't it achieve opposite effect? All smaller, non ASIC resistant currencies can be bullied by someone with a lot of (rented) PCs. Ignore 51% attack, just sudden changes in difficulty & time between blocks would introduce chaos.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    ASICs are specialized equipment which usually costs a lot. That leads to centralization, which is not something you want for a cryptocoin. Just look at bitcoin with their four people controlling a majority of hashpower.
croon 8y ago
Why is proof of work a desirable quality? I believe the answers to both questions are the same. If something designed to be hard can be made easy, you lose whatever goal you wanted to achieve by the former.
_nalply 8y ago
The majority of miners are not a lot more than hobbyists. I am, too. They prefer GPU mining because they know GPUs better than ASICs and because GPUs are more flexible than ASICs. The barrier of entrance to mining is lower. Additionally, imagine you bought GPUs. Then of course you are going to oppose to changes destroying the profitability of your GPUs. If you then read about someone writing about ASICs fostering centralisation, you'll be inclined to approve such statements. However ironically it has been shown that quite possibly GPU mining is more prone to centralisation attacks than ASIC mining.

simias 8y ago

As TFA points out no matter how ASIC-resistant you try to make your PoW algorithm you're just delaying the inevitable. If any of these cryptocurrencies actually manages to become the currency of the future the incentive to increase the hash-rate-per-kW by a few percents to be worth it. Having a pool of different algorithms might improve the difficulty but it will also make it tricky to audit all algorithms for vulnerabilities. On top of that an ASIC might not have to implement all algorithms, they could idle and only spring into action when an algorithm they implement is selected for instance. The main point of the article stands, no matter how complicated you make your algorithm a special-purpose solution will always be more efficient than a general-purpose one, it's just a matter of balancing the cost of developing the ASIC vs. the expected return. If, as the article points out, developing chips for minor cryptocurrencies using ASIC-resistant PoW is cost-effective I can't imagine how anybody could hope to design as ASIC-resistant cryptocurrency designed to become the currency of the future. Think about it, in the unlikely scenario where a PoW cryptocoin eventually replaces the dollar the mining rewards will quickly amount to billions of dollars. The incentive to get an edge, no matter how small, would be tremendous. An alternative scheme would be to change the change the PoW algorithm regularly like the article says Monero is doing, but then you give a huge amount of power to the people selecting the next PoW. Consider how incredibly tempting it would be to develop an ASIC for some PoW algorithm and then have it selected by Monero, you'd have a huge head start.