In what way did ASICs coming to bitcoin hurt the value or usability of the coin?
By pushing many out from mining with GPU's. You just don't get it and you were NOT paying damn attention to his or my arguments. Go back and read them and you will have the answer to your damn question!
What was his arguement? MORE people have access to GPU's than ASIC's. In fact, there are many countries that ban ASIC's. With more GPU's there would be more people laboring together and become more invested into the project while acting as missionaries for the project. The more a coin gets centralized by BIG ASIC mining companies, the less people there are who can even afford to invest into labor for the coin in the form of mining. Which gives no incentive to invest time and/or equity into the project and does NOT convert newcomers into a missionary for the project and ultimately help the project grow and become adopted much faster.
But you can't seem to understand and/or don't want to acknowledge this commonsense FACT he spells out in his argument (below).Agreed that ASICs suck. They centralize and suck value from coins. I don't believe in equality (regarding income inequality debates) but believe in equal opportunity and not everyone has access to ASICs. (To be overly frank, if you're not sucking Chinese dick you're not getting a good deal on an ASIC in the current market.)
"Cryptocurrencies are as much of a social phenomenon as they are a technical innovation.
If your community isnt building with your cryptocurrency they arent becoming attached to it. When people put labor, whether thats running a node or a meetup, into a cryptocurrency they become intrinsically invested in it. That hardens their convictions, solidifies their beliefs, and can turn people who came to your platform as mercenaries into missionaries."
https://messari.io/news/dae50c46-e7c7-487e-b3a6-22977809fedeRolf Versluis (also known as BlockOps) is co-founder and Special Advisor of ZenCash.
I agree with Rolf's opinion on not really such a thing as ASIC/FPGA Resistance. However, there most certainly is such a thing as ASIC/FPGA EVEN KEEL. Meaning, ASIC's and FPGA's are put on pretty much an even keel with GPU's at a ratio of 1.1 to 1.0 or 1.2 to 1.0 at best for ASIC's and FPGA's. Especially, with PROG Proof of Work. He mentions PROG Proof of Work in a comment below in purple. He also mentions GPU miners coming over to ZENcash [If there was a fork] to "...use our wallets... which would be good overall for the project."
What disturbs me is the many times [While discussing ASIC's] he said, "...to be category leader."
I wonder which is more important:
Is it more important to become category leader of an ASIC/FPGA coin mined by fewer people and therefore creating a smaller "centralized" community and slow growth in the size of that community?
- OR -
Is it more important to increase the number of people mining to make ZENcash more secure and DE-centralized; WHILE increasing the SIZE of the community with more people having the opportunity to get involved and mine with GPU's?
Rolf Versluis made the following statements in a recent notification update for ASIC Resistance:
"The way to become a category leader for an ASIC is to first become a category leader in an Algorithm. Zcash is, right now, the category leader in Equihash with parameters N=200 and K=9. There are multiple ASIC miner vendors for that algorithm, further securing the Zcash blockchain."
"By making the change, ZenCash would have a chance, over the next year or so, to become the category leader in Equihash 144, 5. Depending on what the ASIC manufacturers decide, they might build an ASIC miner for Equihash 144, 5. At that point ZenCash would have the opportunity to be a category leader in an algorithm mined by ASICs. That would be a good position to be in from a project security standpoint."
"If Zcash announces that they intend to change to a different Algorithm than Equihash with parameters of 200, 9, that opens up an interesting possibility for ZenCash. There are already multiple ASIC mining vendors for that algorithm. If ZenCash stayed on that algorithm, then when Zcash made the change away from it, ZenCash would have the opportunity to be the category leader in that algorithm."
Rolf Versluis (also known as BlockOps) also said the following:
"Its also worthwhile to look, longer term, to change to an algorithm that is more balanced between CPU, GPU, FPGA, and ASIC. The most balanced algorithm between GPU and ASIC in production right now appears to be Ethash. There are other algorithms in development, including Prog-POW and Merkle Tree Proof (MTP), that may be even more balanced between CPU, GPU, FPGA, and ASIC. One of the reasons for making this change is to give as many different people the opportunity to mine ZenCash as possible, expanding the community. This type of algorithm might be a good one to change to at the same time that ZenCash potentially changes from blockchain to blockDAG."
"In the mining world, there are many miners who have GPU miners that are finding it unprofitable to mine either Zcash or ZenCash, because of multiple factors, one of them being the entry of Equihash ASIC miners into the marketplace. If ZenCash were to change to a version of the Equihash algorithm with parameters 144,5 that can not be currently mined by ASIC, there would be many GPU miners that were mining Zcash that would change over to mining ZenCash. They would then use our wallets, evaluate the potential of retaining mining earnings for Secure Nodes, and find out more about ZenCash, which would be good overall for the project."
Which is more important:
Is it more important to become category leader of an ASIC/FPGA coin mined by fewer people and therefore creating a smaller "centralized" community and slow growth in the size of that community?
- OR -
Is it more important to increase the number of people mining to make ZENcash more secure and DE-centralized; WHILE increasing the SIZE of the community with more people having the opportunity to get involved and mine with GPU's?
We've already seen ZCash fall prey to ASIC's and give in. We'll soon find out if ZEN will do the same. Unfortunately, I'm not liking what I'm hearing at the moment with this so called, "category leader" stuff.
I do like knowing he sees the logic with GPU miners coming back "They would then use our wallets, evaluate the potential of retaining mining earnings for Secure Nodes, and find out more about ZenCash, which would be good overall for the project." However, does he think GPU miners will stay and support the network by getting involved with secure nodes and super nodes when ASIC's are made for 144.5 parameter and he fails to change the algorithm to something like PROG PoW to put ALL HARDWARE on an even keel?
It seems like it's still up in the air and more 50/50 in regards to an algorithm like PROG PoW to put ALL HARDWARE on an even keel. Yes, I do believe there will be a fork to at least 144.5. I'm concerned about what they do afterwards. Cause like he said, there will be ASIC's on 144.5 eventually.
I "KNOW" there is a LOT involved with transitioning over to another Proof of Work that would make ZEN more open to more miners by putting ASIC's and FPGA's on an EVEN KEEL with GPU's. I'm sure the task may seem daunting. However, I ASSURE YOU, it will pay great dividends down the road if ZEN would change their Proof of Work to put ALL HARDWARE (GPU, ASIC and FPGA) ON AN EVEN KEEL. This way, everyone is happy. There are people living in countries that have actually banned crypto mining ASIC's. They don't ban GPU's. Everyone would be happy if ZEN switched to an algorithm that puts ALL HARDWARE on an EVEN KEEL.
I hope ZEN can see the great opportunity laid before them. They have a great roadmap and only need to increase the size of the community to take part in their vision. Accepting ASIC's will NOT expand that vision to multiple users on a grand scale. I assure you it won't. If GPU's were put on an even keel with ASIC's, then we could truly see ZEN begin to grow astronomically while other alt coins are still struggling to exist.
That's my two cents.
David