Quote from: MagicSmoker on April 22, 2018, 03:09:44 PM

Likewise, I agree with you almost, but not quite, 100%. Where I differ with you is that I see the DERO network as having already passed the stress test, more or less, and so it now seems reasonable to divert some effort into forking off the ASICs. I want to emphasize that I would rather DERO continue on with its core development plan for the same reasons as you: it's best for the long term success of the coin, and I am also mining XMR to buy DERO, so the presence of ASICs is mainly an annoyance, rather than something that totally incapacitates my ability to acquire more DERO from mining. And since anyone who wants to mine DERO can also mine [insert whatever coin] then sell it to buy DERO, too, there really isn't a rational argument to press for forking...

..however, humans aren't entirely rational, and so forking off the ASICs will almost certainly generate much good will.

Furthermore, changing the PoW algo would also give the DERO team valuable and relevant real-world experience, much as the massive hashrate increase and hack attempts of the last few weeks have provided. In fact, I rather suspect all coins are going to have to be a bit more proactive with changing their PoW algos on a regular basis because the rollout of CN ASICs proved that "ASIC-resistant" does not equal "ASIC-proof". It looks like an arms race between coin devs and ASIC manufacturers is all but certain now, so might as well take the fork in the road, to paraphrase the late, great Yogi Berra.

The bolded part of your post does seem to be the point of contention. Where we disagree is the extent to which the stress test is known to have been passed. The developers (via Serena) keep alluding to security issues as part of the reason for a delay in switching PoW algo, and I have no real reason to doubt them. They're privy to data which you and I may not possess, or more correctly have neither the time nor inclination to extract from second-by-second network activity. We both have real world occupations that keep us from doing so even if we did have the inclination and skills necessary. That work, and the implementation of changes based on the data, is something I'm happy to leave to the devs.

Once a PoW change is made via hard fork, there's no going back. I'm entirely happy for them to glean every last little bit of knowledge possible from the current perfect storm of circumstances, and then they can go on to learn every lesson available from the PoW switch too. Best of both worlds.

We're not always rational as human beings though, that much is certainly true. My hope is that the critics will come around to the viewpoint that sacrificing a couple of months worth of easy (or marginally easier) mining is well worth it to end up with a more secure and robust network that can handle the volume which might one day come its way. That, I think, will ultimately generate more good will than a faster PoW change.