Quote from: SockPuppetAccount on August 03, 2015, 03:51:52 PM

Quote from: AxiomCryptocurrency on August 03, 2015, 02:06:32 PM

It is our core belief that the only means of advancing this technology, is to take the problems and demands on directly. The community has spoken, the current GPU miner has lead to stress from many of our investors, though we do not currently consider the GPU miner to be a threat to the actual fairness of the coin, with the current hash rate, adjusting block rewards, staking and scalability when compared to the ease of use, electrical costs, and widespread availability of the CPU. Everyone with a computer owns a CPU, anyone can mine AXIOM with a click of a button not everyone owns a GPU. Currently the CPU mining power on the network grossly outweighs that of the GPU.

This is how I see it. Right here the dev is basically saying that he doesn't believe the GPU miner is a big problem, but is responding to the community and will work on fixing it. I don't even understand how the devs can say definitely that the CPU mining power grossly outweighs GPU power. Maybe there is something I am not understanding here, but a hash is a hash is a hash. The only clue would be the IP address of the node that the block originated from, but you couldn't say definitively if that hash is coming from a CPU, GPU farm, or a botnet. A GPU farm could easily be using multiple IP addresses to hide their mining if they wanted to. If there is something I don't understand about the technical details here, please correct me because I am admittedly not a expert.

It doesn't matter to me. I don't have anything against GPU farms and ASICs, but why did the devs put the below statement in the ANN at launch then?

Quote from: AxiomCryptocurrency on July 26, 2015, 03:53:11 AM

AxiomHash - Why CPU Only? - Hash Dominance

Everyone reading this forum at this moment likely has a CPU capable of mining and staking this currency, expanding upon that, the vast majority of the world has a CPU capable of mining this currency in their homes, businesses and workplaces.

Through the altcoin explosion of 2013 and 2014 we observed the rise of ASIC mining technology and the mining arms races that followed. A couple of coins attempted to solve the arms race issue through the use of memory hard and other alternative algorithms but eventually were GPU accelerated. Even CPU algorithms like the original Quark and various combinations of SPH crypto algorithms like x11, x13, x15 have become accelerated and available for renting large pools of capacity through popular miner rental sites. This has lead to the centralization of mining power amongst the few people who operate large farms, and has lead to market dynamics that are focused on maximizing the cost of rentals, paying mining operational costs from profits, and market catabolism from these associated costs.

Mining dominance and centralization also leads to poor coin distribution at launch in many most, as large pools of centralized mining capacity will apply massive amounts of pooled hashpower, outcompete the average user and mine out large amounts of the available money supply. The result of which is instability and the destruction of potential value as coins are sold for small profits in a short span of time on nothing more than hash power, instead of being sold based upon the value of their actual usage scenarios, innovative properties, developer commitment, features, and forthcoming innovation.

This is crippling during the start up phase in which actual investors in the coins technology are faced with diminished value after purchase, and mining difficulties. Afterward, the dominant miners begins to sell off a large share of money supply rapidly, seeking only a quick profit on top of farm expenses, and profits from intentionally marked up rental hash before they move on to the next coin release only to repeat the catabolic cycle.

Market Catabolism

This cycle is catabolic in its nature for several reasons, perhaps often overlooked is the expense of operating such mining farms. A significant amount of the market value is sold to fiat to maintain their operations and cover operational expenses. This slowly drains value from the market, and creates an environment for traders that is discouraging and prone to loss, often causing the investors to leave the market for fear of incurring more financial loss as they were overcome by the sell off phase of the dominant miners.

Axiom seeks to once again decentralize mining powers, create an investor friendly environment for those seeking to invest in crypto currency and bring new technologies to cryptocurrencies as a greater state of adoption is achieved.

So centralize mining is bad and mining farms lead to poor coin distribution, so blah blah blah, Axiom is going to decentralize mining power because it's super important. Then, within days, a private GPU miner is released and in the hands of a small group of individuals, and Axiom developers think "Oh nothing wrong with this, let's carry on" until people bitch and moan about it. HUH!?!?! I don't care about a private group of individuals keeping a miner to themselves, I care about a developer claiming that centralized mining is the bane of crypto one day, and then not concerned in the slightest about threats to it the next. Not to mention the mere fact that a GPU miner was created so quickly shows the developers to be incompetent at best and blatant scam artists at worst.

And please, Axiom is so worried about "poor coin distribution" that they ninja launched in the middle of the night with front loaded rewards and the slowest syncing blockchain known to man. I don't care about ninja launches rewarding the lucky few who catch it early. I did and earned .3 BTC just by downloading the client, typing "setgenerate true -1" and letting it run for a few hours. So thanks for the easy $55 I guess. But hell, at least try to not insult the intelligence of everyone here by claiming you care about poor coin distribution when you launch a coin in this way.

The cherry on top of all this is the revolutionary POS 3.0 they are working on! So supposedly there are flaws in the current implementation of POS 2.0 which Axiom is going to fix. So not only is POW being exploited by GPUs, POS is being exploited as well!!! Did you not notice these flaws in previous POS 2.0 coins? If you did and they were such a big deal, why not fix them before launching the coin? Did you guys test anything for more than a day before launch?

So basically the Axiom devs admitted that they can exploit the mining of their coin but we just need to trust them that they aren't, and if anyone else out there has the knowledge to do so, it's not that big of a deal and they are working on fixing it.

I agree with this analysis. It's only that I am not worried, at all, regarding the distribution. For a maximum of around 10 million coins project, the price is absurdly low and remains low in spite of this GPU mining and the gaming of the CPU POS "irregularities". It is painfully evident that the dev rushed the release of this project that wasn't even remotely ready for primetime. And that is bad, very bad. Worse though is that an entire weekend has passed and he has done NOTHING to either correct the GPU/CPU controversy (other than some "testing", if we believe him) and that we still don't have:

1.- Answers to important PM from him.
2.- A website.
3.- A white paper
4.- A timeline
5.- A real use purpose

All that said, we also DONT have:

1.- A sell off as a consequence of the above, on the contrary, the price has rebounded sharply.
2.- Lack of investors, obviously.
3.- Lack of volume (top dog at Bittrex)
4.- More exchanges (I'm almost sure because the dev has not even bother to contact them).

In consequence, this continues being a very interesting project that can catapult to much higher prices in the near future if:

1.- A website is open.
2.- A white paper and timeline are posted and are reasonably believable.
3.- Other major exchanges are added.
4.- A real-life purpose is aimed and is reasonably possible.
5.- The dev identifies himself and names who else is in his team, if anyone.

At current price, the total market cap, in years to come, is still just above $400k which, in my view, if this project is legitimate, is absurdly low priced at the moment. IF, remaining, for now, a big IF.