Quote from: praxiscat on May 12, 2014, 04:40:17 AM

No, just no. Scrypt-N is even less efficient then scrypt. It is also not anymore secure then scrypt. There are no advantages going that direction.

There will be an official response from the developers regarding this in detail, with that being said this is my personal response.

In terms of any hashing algorithms being more secure, that is more myth and marketing then fact. In fact some of those present their own problems in terms of both security and the potential for botnets after analysis by our developer. Basically, they present some major security issues. In addition some of these new algorithms are literally hacked together, they seem power efficient because they are not optimized. Good hashing algorithms, which scrypt is one, generally have the same level of security, and the same vulnerabilities. Scrypt is actually a secure algorithm, there is nothing wrong with it, other then a significant amount of irrational FUD around scrypt ASICs that is prolific right now. Despite the fact that many of the scrypt asics have not made an appearance, and will likely be gradually be introduced into einsteinium's network. The reality is the advantage to ASICs, is actually security.

In terms of efficiency, some may be more power efficient in terms of GPU mining, that is not mean they are as efficient as they can be in general, and as I stated before, a few of them present their own problems in terms of security. As it has been pointed out, is ASICs are more efficient then GPUs no matter the algorithm, and there is a point where we will need to transition to that form of mining at some point. With that being said, as predicted, it would be needed at a certain point in our life-cycle, especially considering the halving schedule.

I would also not confuse investors with GPU miners either. The two groups are not necessarily the same. We see no reason to change our algorithm at this point. Essentially, it would just be a gimmick with no real advantage.

With all that being said changing the algorithm, and implementing such a large fork can present significant risks. This could range from outright killing the coin, the loss of previous coins, or something else. Litecoin laid out one, the biggest risk is it presents the risks of essentially creating a new coin and two separate forks. In this way forking the coin with a new hashing algoritm presents is a significant security risk, and one with no guaranteed rewards. Keeping the algorithm as is, ups and downs included, at least insures we will not see those risks that are introduced through a new algorithm change, which is in many ways, a gimmick, and one that can introduce major issues.

It is not likely to happen to fork to a new hashing algorithm.

Praxiscat made a valid point incorporating what we (the dev team) discussed earlier. There is no benefit in changing the algorithm at this time. A fork is more than likely to damage the network and the community through loss of coins - we already have documented reports of lost coins from the previous fork, some from the user fault, others from the exchanges fault - or worse. The market is hype prone and irrational, if we would change the algorithm now, any effect would be temporary and WILL be mitigated the second the next hype worthy coin pops up on the forum.

ASIC FUD is again, irrational, ASICs are currently used on the Bitcoin network, SCrypt is the first algorithm beside SHA-256 to attract the attention of ASIC manufacturers, this is a good thing, it means a company invested thousands of dollars in development of such devices, this also means anything people say about ASIC effects on an alternative digital currency is pure speculation.

Seeing how more and more coins are going non-SCypt, we are actually gaining an advantage, by sticking to SCrypt we are effectively detaching ourselves from a "sea filled with fish" type of market and will enter a more defined market with heavy investors (the companies that invested in developing ASICs and the investors buying their devices).

I'll address the ASIC FUD more detailed now because we feel miners look at them from a pool perspective, a 1 on 1 type of thing. So far, most reactions made us believe miners are looking at ASICs as being alone in a pool with a 100MHs horse, while they are a 5MHs pony, the horse submitting more shares and getting more coins by the pool platform. There are alternatives to this, p2pools being one of them(regression to the mean). Rest assure, the protocol of the network dictates that the same amount of coins will be generated every X seconds despite the individual miner's hashing power.

This being said, if the community needs more explanations related to something, please ask here, me or another foundation member will respond as fast as possible.

I would also like to remind you all that the Einsteinium Foundation activates well beyond the realm of the internet - real world organization - where things are not instant and speed is dictated by the slowest denominator of the system. As much as we would like to offer you news on a daily basis about amazing things we made, it can't happen. We're always dependent on some other organization/institution or company to hold up their part of the deal, and that takes time.

One more thing, we are a foundation, a foundation for science, we try to uphold the highest moral standard we can, we try to use science to make the most educated and rational decisions we can. Replying to trolls is just a waste of energy with no actual gain for the coin or the foundation, it's an irrational act. As members part of this community, and by extension the foundation, please try to uphold the same principles, don't answer to trolls.

The Dev Team wishes you all a good day!

(sorry for the color, it was the quickest way to catch your attention)