ASIC resistance #142
Comments
|
I'm not a part of the development team but for what it's worth will share what I think. The thread on the z.cash forum is very good and I generally agree with the first few posts in there that ASICs are bad news. I hope ZEN will manage to remain ASIC-resistant. It is a valid point however that in the long term this will require a substantial amount of development effort - so may be moving to an alternate algo is worth considering as an alternative. My personal opinion is that in the long term PoW will die away as a wasteful algorithm and will be replaced by better ones; that said ZEN should aim for stability above all and be very careful about changing core parts of the system. |
|
I say fork it until ASIC producement is a little bit less centralized. There are good prospects with Samsung and when ASIC-market situation is better, we can fork back to ASIC algorithms for networks security and sustainability. |
We likely wouldn't need another fork, to enable it, we could just change our official stance and stop actively working to maintain our resistance. |
|
i suggest changing equihash params to use more RAM - they have suggested 144,5 on the zcash ASIC thread - https://forum.z.cash/t/let-s-talk-about-asic-mining/27353/70. i think it will be much harder to develop an ASIC with large amounts of RAM, and parameters can also be updated again later as GPUs get more RAM |
|
@zapv0lt, ZeroCoin uses different Equihash params, however they also have many other changes, block header size for example. More research is needed to see if this would be a |
|
Personally I would like to see an algorithm adjustment, even scheduling regular adjustments quarterly. This would severely diminish the interest in ASIC R&D for ZenCash, even small changes should be enough to ensure that a firmware update for an ASIC miner would not be sufficient. Cryptonight heavy and cryptonightv7 would be great cases to review as they have most recently tackled this issue. An important note is that when XMR changed their algorithm their network hashrate dropped over 80%, in a very short period that % of their network was overtaken by these miners and thus proves the potential threat that they could be. Full disclosure I am a GPU Miner, but I also periodically have ASIC miners and even ordered this Z9 as ZenCash is my favorite project and no matter what direction is chosen I'd like to continue to acquire Zen. While GPU mining is not perfect and not entirely decentralized it is massively more-so than ASIC miners (almost entirely produced by one central entity ->Bitmain) I also created a livestream on the VoskCoin YT channel about this miner / potential impact |
|
This new miner is either an FPGA with on board RAM (quite likely) or a full blown ASIC with some kind of very fancy (and expensive) linked memory module. Problem is, we have no technical specs for the Z9 so we could potentially put a load of effort into something that would only take a few days to reconfigure the Z9 to mine... So I think we should spend some time trying to figure out what we're actually up against before trying to formulate a plan. |
|
@A-RK6 Great point. If we decide to maintain our ASCI resistance we'll need to understand the Z9 better to accurately resist it. Changing the EH params might not be sufficient... Does anyone have any more information on the Z9, or any ideas on how to get it? |
|
As much as I do like the benefits ASICs can bring to help solve problems of block time variance and a few other benefits, I have a hard time making those pros out weight the giant con of a single manufacturer and distributor having so much control and influence. A new, unique to zen algorithm could also bring some nice attention to ZenCash as a project committed to decentralization. Don't we aim to be the most decentralized crypto? Maybe we can attract all the GPU hash power from Zcash? Full disclosure for myself. I run a small mining operation at home. Just sold off a 6 card 1070 rig and was recently shafted by Zotac in failing to deliver a 12 card order of 1070tis from an order in January. Now looking to expand and upgrade to many 12 card 1170 rigs when they are released this summer. I run many secure nodes and am looking to add at least one super node this summer. All my mining and node income goes back into the network to expand on nodes. |
|
@tarrenj My friends who are ASIC and GPU engineers can be very helpful with that matter. They are also working on new algo which might be difficult for ASICs to adapt. I've just connected them with Rolf via mail. Let's be little bit patient I have good faith with these guys, they can actually help. |
|
For large decisions that can have significant effects, I like to do a worst case/best case exercise. Identify the worst outcome of a decision, and balance it against the best case of the decision. It helps to actually quantify things in doing this as well. Furthermore, part of this decision should be reviewing what the goals of the ZenCash project are and how the decisions to be made are consistent with the goals. There are people making hardware purchasing decisions about this, and if too much of the entrenched hashrate comes from miners running ZenCash ASIC's then over time there will be a group of people wanting to maintain that hashrate. Making a decision on the direction to go is something that should be made withing a reasonable time period. Choices under discussion so far that I have seen:
One of the things I have noticed as a cryptocurrency miner is that the cryptocurrency that is the first to have a new algorithm in many cases becomes the lead of that mining class. It may be because the ones that have their own algorithms also have developers that continue to create and improve the cryptocurrency, so it may be more due to the long term effect of active developers, and the same effect could be obtained by continued active development on the project. |
|
Some of the best discussion I have seen on the zcash github is in this issue zcash/zcash#1211 |
|
@bitcartel created a branch of zcash that allows for testing of different Equihash parameters, which would probably be useful to review. I will quote what he said in that zcash issue: To help answer this ticket, I spent a few hours on the weekend and have a prototype based on v1.1.0-rc1 which allows equihash parameters to be changed for each network upgrade. The code is in commit bitcartel/zcash@02397b6 on my branch here: https://github.com/bitcartel/zcash/tree/equihash_upgrade_parameters Here is the output of solutions when switching parameters in regtest mode: Example usage in regtest mode: ./zcashd -nuparams=5ba81b19:10 -eqparams=5ba81b19:96:5 The code should be useful for the community to build on and experiment with different solvers and parameters. |
|
Here is an interesting experiment. Fork of zcash with different equihash parameters: Current bitcointalk page: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3310714.msg34560204 website: https://zerocurrency.io/ |
|
@blockops1 If we presuppose that it is possible that we are currently bearing some ASIC hash rate from Bitmain on our network, I would think the most pragmatic thing to do in this situation, would be to modify the existing equihash algorithm in the short term. Once too much hash rate comes onto the network from the ASICs, it will become increasingly difficult to fork away to being ASIC resistant again. |
|
My bet is that the last four memory intensive machines will all be based on the same chip architecture (ETHASH, EQUIHASH, CRYPTONIGHT, BYTOM). Since they have advertised Sophon, their own AI architecture, I would say they are utilizing that. And I would further point out that forking to a similar cryptographic algorithm would have only a delaying effect on the adaptation of "ASIC" machines. |
|
Personally, I believe the biggest issue here is not so much ASIC's in general, but the fact that currently Bitmain is holding the ASIC monopoly. The way I see it, the argument against ASIC's would not be as central if there were several companies on the market competing between each other.. So I would propose striving to maintain ASIC resistance until that happens. What do you guys think of this? |
|
@bicheichane Totally and completely agree. There is also another argument for availability to small miners. Distribution of these machines also has a great affect on how smaller miners acquire hardware. If you want to maintain a decentralized POW system, you need to think about the possibility of pushing small miners out of the market. Its not like I can go to my local computer hardware store, Best Buy, or Microcenter and pick up an ASIC any time soon. This may not apply in some of the Asian markets where they can do OTC sales of mining hardware. The limits ASIC manufacturers push on their customers (one per) really end up hurting smaller miners. Larger operations are given priority and access to make high volume orders of these machines. If the manufacturing and distribution of ASICs can be sorted out, then it would indeed be preferable to use ASICs. Slowly starting to see this get solved in ASICs for Bitcoin, but still a long way from distribution reaching a level the GPU market has been able to reach. |
Categorically against ASICs ... why is this even a question in the current context, particularly for a coin that has "anonymity" as part of its principles? Yes, it's going to take effort to fight them, obviously, but let's please not get complacent here if you care about the crypto space. Make it harder for the immoral ASIC manufacturers, not easier. The core idea was to take back control from banks and governments ... surely we remember that? Mining with ASICs is no different. I'm talking about the current ASIC mining. Communism was also a good idea theoretically (those who raise an eyebrow should actually read about that), but all its implementations suck(ed) big time. With ASICs for mining currently we have manufacturers who:
Wasn't Zen in its inception days also touting "ASIC resistance? Are we now entertaining the option of giving that up because it's too much of a hassle and it's bound to happen sooner or later? It's certainly bound to happen if we remain idle. Complacency and paths of least resistance is how banks became so powerful over our lives over time. It shouldn't be an option when "embracing" ASICs now would mean we'd put the coins we love at the behest of a single/handful of corporations and corrupt (+ totalitarian) government(s). We all kind of have a duty to uphold the opposite. I won't beat the "centralization" drum. But chinese and russian centralization are worse than the average person knows it, including the average crypto person. Those who have contacts in China could attest to the astounding levels of corruption and how chinese energy companies are now the ones who mine, i.e. who own farms and Bitmain products. A lot of other chinese farms are getting energy for cheaper than market price from their energy company buddies. Regulators sometimes pretend to flex some muscle and ask farms to close, and then parse the spectacularly corrupt hierarchical tree of officials down to local officials, in bed with the farms, who simply reply "Uhmm, we have no farms here", or "We have shut it down" only to flip the switch back after 24h. Even if for some misguided reason we were to believe in the idea of benevolent centralization (as in benevolent dictatorship), the chinese or russian one are certainly not it. I'm not even going to mention the history of bad faith shown by ASIC manufacturers, or the callback home feature accusations, or comanies like Genesis Mining (and the likes) and their grotesque and imoral business model who have already affected both ASIC and GPU markets and are ripping customers off. There's also the nonsense from the people touting ASICs are more energy efficient and thus more environmentally friendly (like this expert: https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf). ASICs offer a benefit in Hashes/watt, but no fundamental benefit. That H/watt advantage only works if everyone else is on cpus/gpus. If everyone moves to ASICs then no benefit is gained at all. The Hashes/coin would rise astronomically and the same energy would then be burnt. I would be very disappointed if the Zen team didn't make the effort to implement countermeasures, (whenever necessary) as long as we're in this ugly context described above. That founders fee it has enjoyed until now from all GPU miners would effectively turn into an endowment from Bitmain. Ughhh ... |
|
I really applaud 'aleqx' words. Aleqx exposed very important principles and moral arguments to stays asic-resistant: ASIC manufactures are totally in bed and controlled by the totalitarian Chinese govertment. Which in turn support modern Tiranies worldwide like in Venezuela, where asic-mining is forbidden for the little guy and totally controlled by the Goverment, which is building mining farms to circunvent international sanctions. The citizens can only do GPU/CPU mining cause it is harder to be identified and controlled by the goverment. |
|
I'd also like to add to the discussion the issues we will face with accessibility if we were, as a community to allow Bitmain ASIC's into the network. We will certainly be excluding a lot of potential participants whom are interested in ZEN and also burning existing contributors that have continued to support the network over the entirety of the project by essentially raising the cost of entry in order to mine, in excess of $2300USD and further factoring in powers costs as opposed to an individual purchasing consumer grade hardware which is much more affordable and accessible to many people around the world. It would be in the community's best interest to fork against the Z9 Mini from Bitmain and continue being persistent in regards to ASIC Resistance so we can continue to enjoy diversity when it comes to consensus mechanisms and by not allowing one entity to essentially gain a monopoly over the network, which further solidifies their position and provides them with additional resources and capital to continue exploiting other networks and in particular our own. In the spirit of decentralisation and fair mining, we should fork against the ASIC. Please do right by those that have shown the community and network a commitment, support and valuable contributions. |
|
I guess I'll have to be one of the few dissenters. My thoughts are pretty perfectly reflected in this blog post, so I urge the anti-ASIC folks to read and consider this: https://pdaian.com/blog/anti-asic-forks-considered-harmful/. If a project is profitable to mine, specialists will specialize. Why is no one upset about GPUs vs CPU mining anymore? That was truly one-cpu-one-vote if we want to be decentralization purists. Let's be perfectly honest that most pro-fork people are protecting their own interests. That's not a judgement, it's rational human nature, but I think it's a bit short-sighted. I could run one of these with much less specialization than I currently had to do for my 8 GPU rig, and by the way, I can't even buy any for reasonable prices from NVidia (the "centralized" provider for Equihash). I wouldn't need a 240V line and the noise should be much less than your typical ASIC due to the fact they are only dissipating 300W. I've never understood hurling the way-too-often-used "decentralization" maxim as an argument against more efficient mining. Bitmain is offering to sell these to people, one per person, for much less money and operating costs for the same hashrate. What would be centralized is if they didn't offer to sell them. A result which is much more likely if they know projects will fork when they offer them publicly. I would much prefer the dev team to keep their eye on the ball and continue to deliver on adding value to the actual platform, the reason the project exists. I don't think a lot of time should be spent playing whack a mole. |
|
I tend to agree with rocknet on several points here. 10 kH/s at 1/5th the price of a GPU rig is lowering the barrier to entry, not raising it. Bitmain has done some shady stuff, no doubt, but their objective is to release hardware and profit from it... not dictate direction for projects (except maybe BCH and now BTM). Whether or not ZEN forks won't matter to Bitmain. There will be a handful of Equihash coins that won't fork and those Z9 minis will be pointed there, and those projects will benefit from it. The question becomes, "How does ZEN get ready for the future?" Does the Z9 mini help ZEN get there? I think yes, but I realize that's not a popular thought. |
|
ZenCash absolutely should not fork in response to Bitmain's announcement. A fork is an action that should not be taken lightly or as a knee-jerk reaction to the natural progression of technology. There is nothing inherently bad about ASICs. Every single GPU is technically an ASIC. Bitmain has simply produced a piece of hardware that is more efficient at the task than those currently in use. Why shouldn't Bitmain be allowed to compete with nVidia and AMD? Efforts to promote decentralization are not without merit. It is known that CPUs and GPUs are more widely available than specialized ASIC hardware for numerous reasons. An effort towards decentralization in the form of accessibility is an approach that may warrant the effort. If algorithm changes are to occur specifically to promote decentralization, then should occur on an expected schedule, not in response to technical advancement. ZenCash is already conducting research in DAG based technology. Since this will undoubtedly change the way the PoW system works, and algorithm change would be a more natural addition at that time. Efforts could also be made to investigate alternative PoW based systems which utilize the computing power for math or science in addition to securing the chain. There are already numerous papers that exist, but few have been implemented. Adopting this direction would undoubtedly be an advantage for the ZenCash ecosystem as a whole. tldr; Bitmain's ASICs are not a problem. Don't rush out an algo change. If you want to promote decentralization, do it right, or don't do it at all. |
|
If we do not accept ASICs Nvidia and AMD will never improve their equipment or even might do that on purpose to have good profits with every new release of their GPU hardware. Bitmain is just a third player here no more no less. It might be that they already do have their own ASIC hardware which is not to be sold, isn't it? |
|
@rocknet I thing you missed what for me was the main argument in the @aleqx post: the unfair access and distribution of ASICs. As they are specialised for mining and most of the time offer huge advantages for miners using them, there is always the incentive to keep new products secret and accessible to select few and thus cheat the vast majority of the mining community. There is no comparison between GPUs and ASICs there, not because the Chinese (or Russians for that matter) are worse than anyone else but mainly because the advantage the next model of card offers over the previous one is much smaller, so the incentive is not there. |
|
@rocknet I'm agnostic, but the efficiency argument goes out the window when the difficulty increases due to the increased hashrate from the ASICs, effectively it is a zero sum game, as it was intended to be. The difference being that if the large miners are using ASICs and they are switched between different blockchains (opportunistic mining) as we have experienced recently with ZenCash, if all that is left is GPUs we will potentially have even longer blocks as a result and larger oscillations in difficulty, hashrate and therefore blocktime. |
|
Sorry for the off, just a short note. Communism was never a good idea even theoretically, read up on the clear explanation by Ludwig von Mises some 100 years ago. Was clearly spelling out what is going to happen and why - no coincidence it happened that way. |
|
@NagyGa1 you're still discussing the implementation (at the time, future implementation given current context and predictions), not the idea. Self-policing works great in Switzerland, but would be a catastrophe in Somalia. Current ASIC "market" if further encouraged/embraced would be a similar catastrophe for crypto. |
Agree. But communism still necessarily does not work anywhere. :) |
|
@psyraxaus Yep, your explorer shows aggregate stats for the last 576 blocks, whereas this drooling behemoth only started ~14 blocks ago. At the rate I'm seeing blocks gobbled by it, 24h from now it would be at least 50% of the network (seems it's gobbling around 70% right now) Ironic, as Zen just sent our its newsletter about preventing 51% attacks. Prevent this please! |
|
That is why I said that it will be interesting to watch that address |
|
At 12 blocks in 40 minutes, that's 3.33 minutes/block = 75% of Zen network ... literally owns the Zen blockchain. // with my trader hat on, i'm also curious to see when it will start selling and how many "die hard" hodl'ers (even secure node'rs) it will knock |
|
@NagyGa1 I also noticed its rate was just behind Flypool. I had the same suspicion as you about it, and the fact that it's now gobbling 70-75% of Zen's network adds to my suspicion as there haven't been any Zen founders speaking in favor of ASICs until now, so Bitmain has no incentive to pretend or play nice, and it's just gobbling away the network. 20 blocks in 70 minutes so far = 71.4% of Zen's network (roughly). // I think you mean t1XE1kWtsZAemy123KCcv2z3Fonbksnupka in your post above |
|
Their original plan might have been to use multiple addresses to hide what they are doing (which would not have worked), but somewhere changed course and consolidated them into one. |
|
Also note that Zooko and Bitmain has spoken on the 24th of May, Zooko publishing on 31st of May: https://forum.z.cash/t/so-i-had-a-videochat-with-jihan-wu/29379 That is exactly when the t1Q2QY83u7F7UvkwQR3ep1XyRmknP3syD7n address started to seriously scale up. |
|
@aleqx It is more like 21 blocks in 2 hours. Still a huge number though |
|
@psyraxaus I stand corrected. When I posted I counted 20 from 2:27 GMT (which I thought was the first one) to 3:33. I see two blocks which took 20 minutes, kind of outliers for the rest. I predict ~60% average rate after a longer while. @NagyGa1 Saw that post too. Applauded the comms skills of Bitmain's CEO (https://twitter.com/jihanwu/status/731902686379933697 -- "@MrHodl fuck your mother if you want fuck.") and the Bitmain ass-kissing of some pf the posters. One has to appreciate when the contentious aspect is not the behavior, but the cause of said behavior (more sad and petty than the former). Zooko lost a lot of respect since he got in bed with Bitmain ... |
|
Also, Bitmain's Wu claims "77 x 10 ksols shipped from 27 may", i.e. 770 KSol/s, but that new miner has been doing on average 1 block every 6.7 minutes on Zcash for the past 1 week (1506 blocks in 1 week) -- that's 37% of the Zcash network by the way. Even if you assume they have been shipping 77 units / 4 days (judging from the date of the interview), that would make ~310 units operational during last week, so about 3.1 Msol/s. Total network hashrate during last week was about 610 MSol/s. That solo miner has been doing a whopping 225 MSol/s ... Guess who's been doing that, because it sure wasn't doing 3.1 MSol/s? "We have never been doing a stealth mining strategy.” EDIT: Corrected numbers above. |
|
Agree, but I think it is more like 190MH. Flypool has 200MH, and it is slightly below. |
|
People are also buying from Innosilicon. Their initial order was for minimum 100 units at 50k Sols per unit using 620w power. And these have shipped, that means 5Msol minimum per order available to the miner. These could be coming online now |
|
@psyraxaus See above. Those units you mention give a mere 5 MSol/s ... the miner in question has been doing 225 MSol/s for the past 7-10 days. |
|
People buying hardware from these guys are clearly the suckers at the end, based on how those figures look like. |
|
@aleqx 225 MSol/s on the zen network? Or on Zcash. Sorry I am a little confused. I would say that the user has roughly 25 MSols based on the number of blocks found (and increasing the hash as time goes by), slightly up from Suprnova on the zencash network. This is at a minimum due to the competition with suprnova for number of blocks found. If they had 225 MSol/s on the zencash network, they would be finding more blocks than they are. |
|
@psyraxaus Zcash, prompted by the interview between Zooko and Bitmain's CEO (link above). I did mention Zcash network, and that the numbers are "during last week" and that it did 1500 blocks (it only started mining zen about 2.5h ago and has made 30 blocks). They are still mining Zcash, so they haven't moved the entire hashpower on Zen ... far from it. Zcash, last block found 3 minutes ago (still active): Zen, last block found 9 minutes ago: p.s. We can't quite extrapolate hashrate yet on Zen, as the diff hasn't yet stabilized, only increased little so far. We should see it around 2M if not more, depending on how much hashrate this guy is throwing at it. |
|
I just did some further investigation and roughly 2 hours ago we observed the Zencash network Hashrate increased from 47582085 Sol/s at 2018-06-16 13:56:55 to 59373353 Sol/s at 2018-06-16 14:12:05 Corresponds to the time that this miner started on the network |
|
@psyraxaus That's extrapolated from current diff, surely, assuming 2.5m block times, but the diff hasn't adjusted yet, because this guy has been doing 1 block every 5 mins or so, i.e. a theoretical 50% of the network if diff had caught up, but the diff has hardly increased much since yesterday (940k yesterday, 1070k now), so your Sol/s figure is not reflecting what is actually happening right now ... diff will be climbing a lot more if this guy keeps it up. Unless you meant to say "increase until now" We should see diff around 2M or more soon, depending on how much hashrate this guy is throwing at it. |
|
@aleqx that was taken directly from the daemon reporting the getnetworksolps. Current network sol 53568583 |
|
@psyraxaus I believe the daemon is doing what I described, by default diff is taken as the average of the last 120 blocks (so even more inaccuracy given this guy just started): https://github.com/ZencashOfficial/zen/blob/b7a7c4c4199f5e9f49868631fe5f2f6de6ba4f9a/src/rpcmining.cpp#L40 Diff will continue to climb until it stabilizes. Diff readjustment is triggered every block, but takes a lot longer for diff to converge to a "stable" value. I remember when Genesis Mining (the other company I love so much) deployed their Boeing 747's full of Nvidia cards around mid-May last year, Zcash diff climbed for weeks, though they were probably adding GPUs over a longer time as well. What I mean is that reported/computed values right now aren't reflecting what is going on at the moment, or at any other time that such big miners join/leave suddenly. GPU miners who remain on Zen after this must really love Zen to still be spending on electricity to mine it, unless Bitmain decides they had enough fun with Zen in stealth mode and leave it be ... for now. |
|
Deleted: I realized I was going slightly off-topic, my apologies. |
|
Meanwhile a few blocks mined by F2Pool on Zcash appears to be Bitmain based, judging by the nonces, e.g. this one: https://explorer.zcha.in/blocks/0000000008c112160bae0ba125bd29dc7293fa84da9c4298c3de7e4f9e015970 And, this new address popped up, also seems to be Bitmain: https://explorer.zcha.in/accounts/t1MwHFWMAJMtRywJXhDWDejUyfvvcQQDDgU |
|
This guy appeared as well, mined 50 block so far, with the Bitmain specific nonce structure: https://explorer.zen-solutions.io/address/znZZMWeSK8JBPSyGivAa26C2gvipuhSqVh2 The interesting thing is that it mines blocks with the coinbase transaction including znXEXuRcmaZZtY8QPmbJqahVkeRzGCnDvrJ with 0 amount. Most likely it is a bug they left in their software that tries to hide the fact that the two address are the same entity. See: https://explorer.zen-solutions.io/tx/74e1e6a275e97f431384f1c827cff23dd1f42b896e15dcd50d1f22f2e3d5db39 |
|
3124 ZEN in 5 days. That's 26 ZEN per hour. Still nothing compared to the mining hashpower thrown at Zcash above. We could even say ZEN has been spared, for now. |
|
Depends how you look at it. 50% of the ZEN blocks are mined now by Bitmain related addresses, they just introduced a few new ones. |
|
@NagyGa1 Can you post a source for this please? |
|
Sure.
|
|
and the ZEN network looks like this: and the ZCL network, which is so far clean of Bitmain miner fingerprints, looks like this: I think can easily spot the difference. Recently started to see some appearing on blocks that are NiceHash source, e.g. ZCL block |
|
Marked the current ZEC miners by the above filter. Also, the ZEC and ZEN difficulties did not go up that much as the hashes these entities added, because NiceHash buying subsided, being not economical most times. |
That address disappeared (and was split) almost immediately after these reports (our posts, etc) started appearing around the web ... i don't think they wanted to emulate decentralization at all, they just realized they got caught (if they wanted to emulate decentralization they would have done so from the get go). |
and others
Bitmain will begin shipping the Z9 Equihash miner soon. Let's use this thread to discuss ASIC resistance: Is it something we want to spend the time/resources to continue, or should we embrace ASICs? Staying ASIC resistant will likely require multiple updates in the future as ASICs progress, and would currently require updates to the core software, pool software, and mining software.
X16R and MTP have been mentioned several times, though the specifics of them have not yet been investigated:
https://github.com/zcoinofficial/zcoin/wiki/What-is-MTP-(Merkle-Tree-Proof)-and-why-is-it-an-ideal-Proof-of-Work-algorithm%3F
https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/files/1861292/X16R-Whitepaper.pdf
NeoScrypt is another interesting option, again, it has not been investigated as a potential Equihash replacement for ZenCash:
https://github.com/ghostlander/NeoScrypt
Interesting information:
ethereum/EIPs#958
https://forum.z.cash/t/let-s-talk-about-asic-mining/27353
ZcashFoundation/Elections#1
amiller/Elections@d082057
BTCGPU/BTCGPU#308
There is also interesting discussion taking place in the #general and #mining channels of the ZenCash Discord: https://discord.gg/zTd7C5
This is not a ZenIP, just a thread to continue the discussion. Please ignore typos until I can edit them out, as I'm on my phone...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: