Quote from: stizz on April 17, 2014, 01:17:33 AM

Quote from: cbuchner1 on April 14, 2014, 09:09:54 PM

Quote from: cryptonit on April 14, 2014, 08:01:06 PM

so if i understand cbuchner right its only a matter of time better performing miners on all platforms will be avaiable

it took us longer than a week and lots of debugging to come up with the new implementation. It took some serious brain skillz too. Wink

And no, we don't intend to open source this.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that mining with a proprietary GPU miner closed to other devs is a good thing. I can't really seem to do it.

Maybe I'm just a naive ideologue , but the open nature of crypto currency in general is it's primary allure -to me at least. Open source and peer reviewed is best all around for any aspect of this crazy mining endeavor.

With Scrypt ASICs loudly clanging the death knell of impending profitability decline for massive GPU Scrypt farms. A new coin sporting an eco-friendly (by comparison) algorithm shows up just in time for summer. An 'every mans' mining coin with low power consumption that levels the play field and furthers the goal of widely distributed hash rate. But would that necessarily be the case if I have to pay a premium for a proprietary mining app?

So to C&C I ask: why is this a good idea to anyone other than yourselves?

and to the larger community I ask: does anyone else see an issue and if so what are the implications.

I missed the part where you had a constructive suggestion for how to pay for weeks of work by two professional and highly skilled developers.

I have a list of options, but before I share them, I'm serious - what's your proposal in a way that you think is best for the currency and gives those devs a reason to do their work?

You could argue that they just shouldn't improve the state of the art, but that's not right -- it just means that someone with a private optimized version would be that much more easily able to control the network. So, what's the best way?

And, btw: An "energy-efficient" algorithm from a family that was a SHA-3 candidate means only one thing: There's not a good implementation yet...