Quote from: shojayxt on August 29, 2015, 04:53:37 PM

Quote from: bt62567 on August 29, 2015, 04:33:32 PM

Quote from: shojayxt on August 29, 2015, 02:05:29 PM

Quote from: Fuzzbawls on August 29, 2015, 10:09:21 AM

face it, this project is at a total standstill.

Original dev vanished, PR manager has been silent as well.

There MAY have been interest from an outside dev, but with no (public) response from the PR manager, interest died.
Community takeover was mentioned, but again, without ANY word from someone on the original team, interest died.

Would probably be best to stick the proverbial fork in this coin and call it a day.

IF there is interest and support for the AxiomMemHash algo from the community, make a new coin instead of trying to beat this dead horse back to life.

The entire premise of this coin was to be GPU resistant. From the ANN: "Acknowledging the private GPU miner problem". It failed at it's core purpose. Within days there were private GPU miners. There is not a private GPU miner problem. That problem has been solved by using algorithms that have public GPU miners available. This coin that was supposedly intended to solve the "private GPU" problem actually created it's own "private GPU" issue by not releasing a public GPU miner. I find it odd that they could come up with this algo but not a GPU miner when many others were able to develop a GPU miner. It doesn't add up. That's why I believe the coin was launched with a private GPU miner from the beginning.

If all this coin has is an algorithm that failed to accomplish it's core purpose then it's failed. What are the benefits of using the AxiomMemHash algorithm? There still isn't a publicly released GPU miner.

There are some problems with this though maybe. First the efficiency when translated to a gpu is minimal. If there way to make gpu mining completely obsolete you probably would see it by now, right?. Second, what I just said may be wrong, as in, without knowing how optimized the cpu miner is compared to what it could be, its kind of hard to make statements like that, no? A cpu miner might be able to be optimized much further, further than a gpu. I don't think its a simple copy paste when translating something to be hashed with a gpu. Are you a miner developer? I am just saying in thought that another coin with this algo may still have some merit, but maybe this will too. Dev might just not have anything to say at this point and is still working on things, but I don't really care because I have written this off already.

edit: On top of that the ongoing pow and pos continuously seems like it could be a good hashing solution. There are not many coins that continue a pow into the pos phase. That kept me interested more than anything I suppose.

The efficiency doesn't necessarily matter. While these CPU only coins are chugging along with people using their I5''s, some guy comes in with a GPU miner getting 300% more hashrate and is running four or more cards on multiple rigs. He is going to have an advantage. He might not even be paying for electricity because he's still living at home with his parents. Those coins typically all get dumped as fast as they are mined before the hype wears off the coin. A 300% advantage is not minimal and in the early stages of a coin it is highly advantageous.

The efficiency does and doesn't matter which is obvious. From what has been shown by developers (maybe double of a 6 core i7 at double the power consumption), the efficiency is minimal, so it does in fact matter, and there is no way to argue around that? Again without being a experienced miner developer you have no way of stating that there is an inherent flaw in the hashing of the algo. You obviously weren't here in the early stages because there was no significant hashrate early on, despite the fact of there not being a 300% advantage once gpu miners did come around.

As for releasing a gpu miner, if you were a developer mining the coin with gpu's, why release it? Just so difficulty can go up more? There were gpu miners offered, but no one wanted to pay, because cpu's were within the same efficiency.

bt62567

Posts

Merits