ASIC Resistance is a real condition, but it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the encryption algorithm in use.
It's simply an economic situation, and it's fluid.
Litecoin (and other coins) are not ASIC-Resistant in any inherent fashion, and they're certainly not using "ASIC-Resistant Alogrithms". They're just not currently worth the bother.
If you are backing a coin because you think it is "ASIC Resistant" you're going to learn that this is a self-defeating goal when that coin actually achieves any significant real world use.
I just wanted to make a separate thread for this because there are SO MANY THREADS that I want to post it in. I hope that someone out there feels helped by this explanation.
Whew, all right fit over - Carry on.
It's simply an economic situation, and it's fluid.
Litecoin (and other coins) are not ASIC-Resistant in any inherent fashion, and they're certainly not using "ASIC-Resistant Alogrithms". They're just not currently worth the bother.
If you are backing a coin because you think it is "ASIC Resistant" you're going to learn that this is a self-defeating goal when that coin actually achieves any significant real world use.
I just wanted to make a separate thread for this because there are SO MANY THREADS that I want to post it in. I hope that someone out there feels helped by this explanation.
Whew, all right fit over - Carry on.
Thank you for the lengthy dissertation of why, mathematically, the number of computations and memory transactions performed doing one sCrypt hash and one SHA256 hash are exactly the same and have comparably easy implementations on application specific integrated circuits.
+1
ASIC Resistance is a real condition, but it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the encryption algorithm in use.
It's simply an economic situation, and it's fluid.
Care any less to actually define your "real condition" notion of ASIC Resistance? I get that it's an economic situation, and fluid, though
