ASIC resistance

[tarrenj]

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: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/958 https://forum.z.cash/t/let-s-talk-about-asic-mining/27353 https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/Elections/pull/1 https://github.com/amiller/Elections/commit/d0820571a359f682e519d89375dc162570361cd2 https://github.com/BTCGPU/BTCGPU/issues/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...

[tarrenj]

ok, cool, I thought you said we need to vote to decide this, glad you did not mean it as binding that we would make a decision by voting.

Edited the earlier post for more clarity.

@kgcrypto good points. I'm playing around with changing the EQ params now too, but without being a real blockchain dev I don't have faith that my attempts at testing will cover all the edge cases. The quote above from @bitcartel is pretty helpful, I'd encourage everyone to take a look at that and do some testing too!

[rocknet]

I've seen some state that their main problem with ASICs is only having one provider. It seems to me a great way to ensure that no other providers emerge is to try to shake off the first provider. Some also believe the company is already mining with them. I doubt this considering they don't even know the final specs yet, but if that is the case, Bitmain offering these for sale to people helps decentralization. Bitmain and other potential ASIC manufacturers are very likely taking notes. One of those notes would be, after the algo adjustment, create miners in private just for our company and our "friends", simply don't offer them for sale next time.

In addition, the introduction of ASICs to the network by the public makes the network harder to attack. Considering the goals of the ZenCash platform, this should not be so easily dismissed. Keeping just GPU mining allows a hostile actor a much easier attack considering we know at least 9x improvements in efficiency are possible with purpose-built hardware.

Honestly some of the opinions here make it seem like the network exists to secure the miners, instead of the other way around. Mining is a service to the network, shouldn't the mining service providers evolve like every other industry when technology warrants?

I'll state again, I would much rather the devs team keep their eye on the ball delivering on platform functionality, the reason the project exists and there is something worth mining to begin with. I posted this a while back, but if you haven't read this, please read and consider. https://pdaian.com/blog/anti-asic-forks-considered-harmful/

[tarrenj]

@tarrenj I've heard that VoteCoin would be useful, but hopefully you're not thinking the actual direction of the project would be determined by the vote.

@kgcrypto Why not? This is a community project, so I'm not sure how we could go against the communities wishes in good conscious.

[grenwolde]

The problem of there being only current developer fo the asic product is a serious one. I believe from an efficiency perspective the asic type of tool is inevitable -- however, it is how you develop that tool, the impact on the community, and impact on the coin ecosystem and purpose. You can as is currently happening to allow a single company come and essentially take over, or in a more pragmatic fashion put out the specs and have a series of companies come to market with a product. There will always be a major player, but competition is healthy not only for the community but for the ecosystem.

[crypto4techs]

All of the algorithms which have fallen to ASICs as of late have touted ASIC resistance from the beginning. You wanted your coin(s) to be ASIC resistant because, like the rest of us, you saw the danger of centralization, the danger of one company having too much control in crypto. You, and every other coin project team have a choice to make right now. Are you going to stick to the principals on which your coin was founded, support the miners who helped get your project off the ground, who have stood by you since the beginning and not be bullied into accepting ASICs and centralization, or are you going to roll over and give control to a company who may not care about the vision you each have for your coins or the effect they have on the health of a decentralized mining ecosystem? Time to dig into the trenches and work together to topple the giant that threatens us all.

[kgcrypto]

@tarrenj Well, feasibility of an immediate solution is what I'm getting at. I am 100% for having a vote. In fact, I suggested some radical ideas in my forum post here: https://forum.zencash.com/t/the-asics-are-here-what-does-the-community-think/1786/11. If the community is ignored and given no outlet to voice their opinion, they should state it by hook or by crook, even if it means taking the network partially offline.

Eventually we'll head the way the community desires, but timelines.. timelines are short. Best effort is where we should focus. Practical solutions need to be suggested, weighed and moved on.

When it comes down to brass tacks, it might not be possible to do much before the first Z9 is unloaded at our doors. I wouldn't want to introduce a major bug in Zencash by putting a faulty solution in hastily. A policy of resistance is desirable to me, but not immediately at the expense of ruining functionality. Upstream changes are pretty important. Maybe we find that tweaks to Equihash to make the Z9 a little less potent are effective. Lets suggest that, and then move on to new algos later if necessary as we and other projects find better solutions. Anyway, I have nearly no say, really. I'd just like us to see what can be done about the ASIC resistance issue generally. It's a pretty interesting class of problem that the whole space is going to fret over for years.

Trust me, I know what you mean. Without community, we have no network.

[zenstudy]

For the case that ASIC miners will occupy the Equihash network. I think the ZEN official should change the algorithm for four reasons:

1. It can increase the exposure frequency of ZEN. With the action of changing algorithm, it can increase its exposure rate and expand its influence.

2. It can be a way for a large number of miners. a large number of miners have no mine, BTC can not dig, DASH can not dig, ZEC can not dig, change the algorithm, this can attract all the miners to the ZEN community, which is a good way to expand ZEN own.

3. It can be supported by the developer of the graphics card.if the algorithm is not modified, there will be a large number of idle graphics cards, which will lead to a sharp drop in the price of the graphics card, which is not willing to be seen by the graphics cards developer. on other hand why ZEN official do not union the graphics cards developer to change the algorithm.

4. It can show the determination and ability of the official ZEN to centralization. the official acceptance of the challenge by ZEN is a way to improve its influence. It is more effective and more popular than advertising.

So I think ZEN should change the algorithm.

[ghost]

I like it ASICs free, because 1) I like to think that a small GPU miner/pool has something to say in all of this. 2) All ASICs manufacturers are dirty scumbags who deserve to be punished (well they will still be in green, so not so much of a punishment) 3) If a project ever gonna change it stance on ASICs it should be done prior of such threats, for it to be more coherent, accepted, and not feel like an enforcement on a community.

[SoftWomble]

This discussion should have really been initiated when the Ethash miner was released (or earlier when the rumors surfaced), so a clear position could have been published prior the Z9.

I generally think that forking being suggested by many is a stalling action, not a full answer. After a fork how long until the new algo is also 'cracked'? There is also a risk that any fork will also invalidate some of the existing ecosystem (e.g. low end GPU may not be usable if too much memory requirement with new algo). I think a lot of people oversimplify what is involved in a fork of this nature, and discount the ability of the other party to adapt to the fork and rollout another version (whether it be FPA or ramp up hardware).

New technology and inovation will always occur, the answer shouldn't be that anytime there is a superior technology we change so that it cannot be used - if we did this mining would still be CPU and Raspbery PI etc.

From what I read I am not seeing any solutions being proposed to actually ensure decentralisation (and ensure there cannot be a 51% attack - irrespective of the technology available) in the long run, just suggestions to block 1 player (Bitmain) that we know of at the moment in the short term.

As such, I am only in favor of a fork if it truely addresses decentralisation, not just focuses on the short-term and 1 player in the market.

My disclosure: I run 5 GPU rigs (approx 40 GPU in total), 1 of these has been on ZEN full time and another 2 regularly on ZEN, and several ZEN Secure Nodes.

[koljenovic]

@blockops1 SHA-2 is a family of similar algorithms that among others includes SHA-256 and differ on digest size. I am not aware that bitcoin there has been any other hashing function used.

@tarrenj the idea of a vote is a feasible one, I suggested using uacomment (because of nodes voting) but zend does not have it as it was forked off on 0.11.2 and it was fully implemented in bitcoind 0.12.0 as per https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0014.mediawiki

I would suggest pulling in uacomment from upstream into the July zend release. Also one other suggestion is drafting a voting consensus procedure like the one outlined in the early BIP's (0001, 0002, 0008, 0009), the goal being to clearly define the mechanism in technical terms, institute the voting process and define terms like levels of importance and priority, majority, supermajority, proposal, acceptance etc; this all built upon uacomment. I believe that discussion can be split from the ASIC discussion into a new issues, as well as the parallel process of new Equihash parameters testing because this issue will increasingly turn to a very general forum type discussion.

[LordMajestros]

I think we should all watch this thread for developments https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3545

[nikvladan]

Wow where to start. First of all, I am strongly against ASICs mining. Full disclosure, i do own few rigs, total hashpower 5800 Ksol.

First, I would like to start with Z9 mini. A lot of people assume, as well as I do, that Bitmain already used these miners since January. Someone mentioned even seeing dust on the fans, they didnt even bother to clean it for a picture. Nowhere on the website it says its brand new. As it is a thing with used products you get limited warranty - 3 months warranty since day of shipment. Shipments from China usually take long time at least a month - month and a half. Which means miners are left with month and a half warranty on second hand merchandise compares to warranty you get for GPU’s which is usually 2-3 years depending on the brand.

Secondly the name Z9 mini - which means there is already a product in their palette that is not mini. Z9 if you will, which uses 1000-1500W power like its usual for ASIC miners. Guess the hashpower on that one? That is right, it will make your Z9 mini obsolete. My guess is somewhere around 30Ksol-45Ksol. These ASICs will not be on sale till Bitmain makes even better ones, and then he will sell you his used ones.

Third point in my post is this. If Bitmain has in fact had these ASICs since January and has even more powerful ones now, he can stock up large quantities of ZEN, be that for dumping or for staking for secure nodes and supernodes. Either way it gives him too much power over the network for voting over issues and 51% attack.

For this reasons we need to fork and fork as soon as possible like Monero did. It is clear that Zcash will not fork by reading Zooko’s reply’s on Zcash forum. Zen can LEAD, FOLLOW or GET OUT OF THE WAY.

In case of fork i see the following scenario happening:

Zcash doesnt fork, while Zen does. Most of the GPU power will move from Zcash to ZenCash. ZenCash will become community leader along with Monero (which has AMD rigs pointed at it, while Zen would had mostly Nvidia). Zencash difficulty would rise, but so would it value as its harder to mine it, while still being decentralized. Secure nodes and SuperNodes would become even better way of earning ZenCash as its harder to mine it. If we compare ZenCash to Price Zcash had last year when it was GPU community leader along with Ethereum for mining, it had 40$ value in April and went up to 878$ in its ATH price. If ZenCash should fork and Zcash should not, we can expect at least 800$ by the end of the year for ZenCash. Imagine gains on SuperNodes and SecureNodes on that value.

I understand that some of you are impatient in waiting for team to announce their final say, and have bought Z9 mini, and you will probably now vote in behalf of ASICS just to cover your investment, but you guys will still be able to mine Zcash.

For those of you who havent bought it but are thinking, please take this in consideration. You order a 2000$ ASIC and with current difficulty you can mine aprox 40$ a day. This will change if we let ASICS run the world, it will go down to 5-10$ a day as soon as people get their hands on them. This is a ROI of 200 days, without power cost, to which I suggest buying the coins you wanted to mine instead of filling Bitmain’s wallet, and barely getting your money back. Sure the value of coins could go up, but it could also go down because of lack of trust from the community backing it so far.

For all of those who say ASICS are way forward, it is not. It is a way backward towards centralization.

Well If I think of anything else I will post it, but please take these things into consideration.

[shmocs]

guys, regarding the voting : one place where every miner is headed often (if not daily) is the wallet where he mines into. So the wallet has to have a Vote section. I don't know if this function is scheduled for development, but for a decentralized community this is a must. A use Arizen for the moment.

As I saw in Neon wallet for NEO - anytime an update is rolled out on github, it asks you to update. The same way, if a voting round is rolled out on github (somehow...) the wallet should notice it and put anyone's vote into the blockchain. If you change your mind - put that different vote also on the blockchain.

As for the ASICs issue - I also forsee a good option to grab all ZEC angry miners (& maybe ETH miners after PoS switch - although Monero is a better option for AMD rigs, but you never know in the future what will bring CryptoNightV8, V9... )

[shmocs]

hmm, I just saw it is in the work : https://blog.zencash.com/zencash-treasury-and-voting-model-update/

Good.

[aleqx]

Following Monero's development is indeed advisable. I also like that all their meetings have publicly available minutes. Full transparency. Here are the full logs of their meeting where they discussed ASICs before Bitmain announced the Cryptonight ASIC: https://monerobase.com/wiki/DevMeeting_2018-03-04

It is known and proven that Bitmain and the ones who got ASICs privately from Bitmain before the public announcement (these are actual energy provider companies in China who now own mining farms, and which really shouldn't, and farm owners in bed with Bitmain) have been using ASICs to mine Monero long before Bitmain made the public announcement about the ASIC miner. The evidence is that the XMR hashrate soared long before those ASICs were sold publicly, and then dropped suddenly to the previous level after Monero hard forked.

It is hard to impossible to like this immoral company and those in bed with it (even if you like ASICs) and we should have a duty to drive this attitude and behavior out of crypto. Please don't be misguided by blind principles such as "ASICs are good". They are only good if the context is healthy. Ours (crypto mining) is far from healthy. On top of this, you're talking about two of the most corrupt and totalitarian governments (China and Russia) overseeing this.

With regards to voting, whatever that is, it should be stake-based and the team should find a way to encourage as much Zen owners to vote. The current Zen DAO looks good to me. I hope the team will use ALL the available channels when calling for this very important vote -- I don't have much time anymore for Discord or Blogs, but I still read my email. Please make sure to push an eye-popping email when the time comes :)

On enocuraging more/other companies to build ASICs: tl;dr you encourage them a lot more by fighting Bitmain than by embracing Bitmain. Here's why.

First, I urge the ones who speak about encouraging more companies to build ASICs to understand that that is very hard to achieve as I was explaining before: it will have to be at a large enough scale to matter, and that requires huge, long-term and high-volume contracts with several big corporations (e.g. memory manufacturers <-- this was the actual reason for the shortage of GPUs last year, Micron and Samsung couldn't keep up with the demand of GDDR5) and foundries. There is a reason why in the GPU and CPU world there are only two such companies, and why in the crypto world there is only one. As I was trying to explain in my previous posts here, embracing ASICs from Bitmain just raises the risk of even more corruption, bad faith and monopoly because of the context and target audience. The attitude and mentality of both will have to change for ASICs to be a healthy part in crypto.

Fighting Bitmain sends a message to companies who DO have a shot at building ASICs at large scale (these are the likes of Samsung, Altera, Xilinx, Intel, Nvidia, AMD) to actually consider it. These are companies bound by law and under public scrutiny A LOT more than Bitmain who pulls all sort of shady things and just doesn't give a shit, but dominates the crypto mining market with ASICs. Keep in mind that the serious entities out there consider crypto to be a wild west (which it is) and that's often sufficient reason to just not get involved. Refusing to embrace an immoral company sends a message to the others about actual, healthy opportunity.

p.s. That said, I would probably prefer to encourage GPU/CPU manufacturers to come up with better products usable for mining because those will always have a lower barrier to entry and appeal factor for beginners to try them, and you can do a lot of other things with them computationally speaking, which could enable new technology (and also mine any coin). As I explained before, there is no real advantage to ASICs if everyone is using ASICs (diff would rise and same energy gets burnt, same revenue obtained) but the crypto world would just have millions of single-purpose kits with no resale value.

[PeaStew]

I'm not sure what is immoral about what they are doing? They are innovating.

Is it immoral for those with more money to buy more GPUs/have cheaper electricity/land that anyone else in the current situation? There are natural advantages for all sorts of people/companies/entities in almost any economic system, having an advantage and using is it is not immoral, in fact it has nothing to do with morals at all but rather capitalism, something that was not invented or perpetrated by the Chinese alone.

How many purely altruistic miners exist?

[PeaStew]

btw, above is not argument one way or the other, just that it is, in my opinion, a specious argument to prop one entity's capitalism against another's as more "moral".

[aleqx]

@PeaStew you might want to read about fair competition, anti-tust etc and why there are actual laws for those (actually enforced in some countries but absent or not enforced in others).

[PeaStew]

I have read a lot of it, I've also read a lot about the downsides of picking winners and losers in a free-market.

[aleqx]

Not sure what you read but Bitmain's behavior (take just the XMR miner selling) is certainly not moral/capitalist/fair - as in promoting fair competition to the consumer's benefit (that's what fair competition/antitrust means).

Picking winners/losers is an entirely different matter - if the market is indeed free and regulated then picking winners/losers gets the likes of Warren Buffett rich, but if it's corrupt yet posing as free, then it gets immoral ones rich to the detriment (not benefit) of the consumer and/or worker.

[Stephenglfox]

@aleqx @tarrenj @blockops1 et al. I think it is necessary for ZEN to fork to another algorithm and make that announcement soon. Choose perhaps X16R, Lyra2REv2, or CryptoNightV7 to gain additional eyes on the chosen algorithm.

ASICs and FPGAs will always be around to pose a 51% attack risk on any crypto network. Even when you think you have built an insurmountable hash rate with ASIC miners the next level miner will come along to pose a threat. The Hash rate scale of bitcoin's network is still vulnerable to attack in many ways.

Bitmain poses a risk through their own volition or by force from the Chinese government. Do you doubt the capability to shutdown every unmodified ant miner in the world? https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitmain-can-remotely-shut-down-your-antminer-and-everyone-elses/ http://www.antbleed.com/

Has anyone auditing their source code and/or burnt custom modified firmware for their ant miner? https://github.com/bitmaintech

Unless there is a competitive open source ASIC design for a crypto hashing algorithm, ASICs and FPGAs should be resisted. There is very little to be gained from a hash rate arms race when the weapon is single sourced because such a weapon is also a single point of failure. The Crypto currency industry as a whole, has the resources to design, publish, and build an open source ASIC miner not withstanding @aleqx comment.

If you must enter the hash rate arms race by permitting ASIC miners then switch back to the SHA256 algorithm. At least there you can find more than one manufacturer to support the network.

In the short term, GPU mining is more secure since they are open, mining software is easily modified, and they don't report home. You can still make modifications at the miner level to secure the network and increase the transaction speed.

Once you allow an ASIC lock-in, your hands are tied all the way up to the mining pool because of the sunk cost and rigidity of the technology. Bitcoin suffers along with a 7 transaction per second transaction rate despite their vaunted hash power and electricity burn.

In the long term Go get the Xilinx and Bittware development kits and get to work. Make them cheap and make them burn as little energy as possible.

Finally, ZCASH is a lost cause. Do not hold out hope that you can continue to pull modifications from their code base indefinitely.

[PeaStew]

https://forum.z.cash/t/let-s-talk-about-asic-mining/27353/137

Forking to a different algo would make merging sapling improvements from ZCash extremely difficult as ZCash has already stated they will not do so until at least the upgrade after Sapling.

Sapling will make privacy transactions mainstream and is therefore an extremely important usability upgrade for ZenCash.

[aleqx]

Unless there is an open source ASIC design for a crypto hashing algorithm, ASICs and FPGAs should be resisted.

An open source ASIC design (*) is of no use if hardware production is not fairly distributed and sold.

(*) you mean FPGAs. ASICs are a different story and require resources far beyond what a "community" can muster. Once again, there is a reason why the CPU, GPU and mining markets are each gobbled by just 1-2 manufacturers.

Forking to a different algo would make merging sapling improvements from ZCash extremely difficult

While true (though certainly not "extremely" difficult), it's far from justifying a show stopper. This is a very dangerous attitude when the alternative is posing greater threats. It's a worthy challenge. I'd be disappointed if the Zen team used this reason to embrace ASICs from Bitmain ...

[Stephenglfox]

An open source ASIC design is of no use if hardware production is not fairly distributed and sold.

@aleqx agreed, I updated my earlier comment. An open source ASIC miner could be an alternative to the Bitmain Antminer Z9 and pose competition. It may encourage other manufacturers to compete since the barrier to entry would be lowered.

[PeaStew]

@aleqx it's not about embracing ASICs at all, but there has to be a cost benefit decision, miner protection is important on the one hand, but so is the long term plans for the ZenCash platform, much of which is designed for the usability proposed by the sapling update. Without having the capabilities of the ASIC (or FPGA) known, it's impossible to tell if equihash parameter changes (as suggested by ZCash) would be enough to eliminate the threat.

I don't know why you keep trying to boil this down to black and white ASIC/ASIC resistance, it's really not that simplistic. If you could provide the specifications of the Z9 mini today I am sure it would be easier to provide a clear answer from the team. Blockops/Rolf is a miner himself, he understands this argument/conflict as well as anyone I would wager and is trying to be as transparent about the thinking going into the decision making as possible.

You want fast answers, but we don't even know the question yet.

[LordMajestros]

@PeaStew I think we know the question. Let me phrase it thus: "Does embracing the bitmain Z9 pose more risk than benefit to the zencash community and the future of zencash?"

[PeaStew]

Do you know the capabilities of the ASIC? No. Then all you know is what the Bitmain website tells you and if they are as untrustworthy as you say, then it is poiintless to use that as proof of anything to be worried about. QED.

[aleqx]

@aleqx it's not about embracing ASICs at all

It's not?

I don't know why you keep trying to boil this down to black and white ASIC/ASIC resistance

I believe I presented a more nuanced version than that and discussed implications. You seem most worried about non-zero extra effort (which, as I said, I believe is a valid argument, but not the most important).

all you know is what the Bitmain website tells you

False, no offense. Track record speaks volumes - both technical and behavior wise - and starting discussions early, before getting our hands on this ASIC, is a good idea and a healthy process.

[LordMajestros]

@PeaStew I think it is about embracing asics. More specifically asics produced by one company. A company located in China. A company that determines how many units are sold and to whom they are sold. A company whose miners always call home (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitmain-can-remotely-shut-down-your-antminer-and-everyone-elses/ http://www.antbleed.com/).

The question is what are the risks and what are the benefits? Which outweighs the other?

[sloppycoffee]

Have you seen this article? https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/05/07/monero-allegedly-attack-claims-double-spends-orphaned-chains-21-block-deep

Not really sure on the technicals but was this caused from the lack of hashrate from forking the ASICs off?

[PeaStew]

@alexq No, it's not, it is a strawman, characterising the argument of "wait and see, lets look at all the possibilities and weigh the risks and benefits" as "embracing". It's lazy logic to serve your arguments purpose. There is no decision present in any of the statements from the team and yet this is presented as a decision pro ASIC without any recognition of the lack of precise information on the Z9 mini or any other project considerations. I am just returning the favour with your nuanced argument.

@LordMajestros I'm not arguing that IF nothing is done to address the threat, then that would not be accepting the new world order for equihash, I'm just saying we aren't at that decision right now so while the passion is understood, the conclusion about what ZenCash needs to do on given knowledge today is not.

[aleqx]

@PeaStew your stance is getting odd and risks limiting/stopping the discussion. The whole discussion here is most definitely about whether or not Zen should embrace ASICs. The title and first post asked for exactly that. Everyone presented their opinions and arguments, as requested. We also all agreed that more details about the Z9 miner are needed and that extra dev effort is required for ASIC resistance. Nobody made any assumptions about what the Zen team will do.

[PeaStew]

Fair enough. I will note that this is not the only place the discussion for ZenCash is happening and may have merged arguments from other people in other areas.

[LordMajestros]

@PeaStew I'm just phrasing the question as I understand it. I'm not asking for an answer immediately.

[koljenovic]

@slayorktc monero and it's forks are very sensitive to hashrate variations and do reorg quite often, 21 is an outlier for sure but nothing impossible, also monero wallet double spend issue is very common when people use the same keypair with more than one wallet file, requiring the user to rescan or sometimes even to start fresh, especially if the wallet picks up on a reorg

[koljenovic]

It has come to my attention that participants in the altcoin space take the matter of forking very lightly, while even in the non-cryptocurrency software development it is a very controversial topic and a last resort type of solution, usually implying a divide among developers so deep that it will never be reconciled. There is a saying that cypherpunks write code and now when the code literally is currency it has even more merit than before, but I see users and miners wanting to fork even for the sole reason that they would love to see ZenCash fork, or that it would drive the price of the asset higher, keep Bitmain away, help miners that cannot buy ASIC, keep faithful to a promise of ASIC "resistance" - that actually never happened - claiming they were somehow cheated etc; but seemingly without a modicum of understanding of the weight of their words, technical implications or even an afterthought for the developers and domain experts.

This ASIC issue from a technical perspective is purely a security concern stemming from the vulnerability in the mining consensus mechanism and must be considered solely as such. I see a lot of blaming, rationalizing and very vague arguments with various motivations but nobody even came up with the current state of the network (both ZenCash and other equihash coins) and an attack vector projection in the form of hashrate necessary to perform a successful attack and it's feasibility, also the implications of such an attack should it occur. Let's remember that not so long ago ZenCash had issues with mining pool centralization, but to my surprise - concern with that issue was lacking then, still is even today.

So in conclusion I would like to say that anybody who believes that they can make a better ZenCash, Bitcoin, ZCash, Monero or whatever coin with a split community and on their own could make an even better coin with the united community harnessing the full benefits of network effects and thus has a clear economic incentive not to fork, all the others are always free to fork at any time and their motivations in dividing the community should be obvious to all.

[JamieTwelve]

As a miner, I can appreciate the concern that exists when considering a fork of the algo. It has to feel like blowing everything up. And no matter what, after the fork, Zen would never be quite the same. I can understand all of that.

The thing is, we know what it looks like when a coin doesn't fork, and when one does. I came into the crypto scene too late. Too late to mine Bitcoin. I'm a miner, and I've never mined Bitcoin. And unless I spend thousands of dollars, I never will mine Bitcoin. There are a select few who can. And there are even fewer that control vast swaths of the Bitcoin mining power. But it won't ever be me.

And that's fine. I have plenty of other coins to direct my hash rate to. But nobody can say Bitcoin is "decentralized". No....a bank doesn't administer Bitcoin like they administer cash. But Bitmain administers Bitcoin. If Bitmain disappears, Bitcoin could very well fail as an idea. At the very least, if Bitmain decided to, they control the fate of Bitcoin.

Why is ANYONE ok with this for Zen? When the term "decentralized" is thrown around from inception, that means you expect the hobby miner to be able to contribute. And make no mistake......if Zencash is NOT FORKED, that will no longer be the case.

Fork Zen, and accept the consequences. The result will be the first legitimate Equihash coin to announce a fork, and in my mind it's already the most legitimate Equihash coin. So Zen needs to continue the reputation that has lead it to where it is today. Zcash has the kind of reputation that would reject a fork. Just consider the 20% founders fee. Zen on the other hand, is the Equihash coin with the legit plan and tech behind it. And forking to remain ASIC resistant is the key to continuing that reputation.

[daemonfox]

I'd like to make a few points and possibly argue for doing something very different than I have read here so far. If someone else mentioned this, then please give them credit.

Points:

1. ASIC resistance is a lie... anyone can make an ASIC for any algo... it is only a matter of it being profitable. This tends to not be an issue for ASICs... adding large hashrate to the network tends to drive up coin value.
2. You will never outrun ASIC development as long as there is PoW. Trying to will waste resources better spent elsewhere.
3. The time it will take to properly make a code change that will not break secure nodes and the blocktemplate AND retain shielded transactions will be WORTHLESS if you do not pick the right algo the first time. Having to repeat an algo change when a new ASIC arrives will kill your development timeline.
4. There are better solutions than an algo change. You should be able to implement SEVERAL methods of block creation and verification with use of existing code from older coins.

So here is my suggestion, and I feel like it touches on all parties concerns. ENHANCE the algo MODULE not the algo itself. Adapt the software to have THREE distinct block generators.

First, split the block generation into three extremely varied difficulty levels and embed three DISTINCT versions of the internal miner, one for each. Set each of those "gate ways" to only respond to a specific type of "hardware signature" through the submitted share. Second, work with the mining software creators, push code for GPU and ASIC hardware signing and the calls for each, they won;t balk because their revenue goes away if their software stops being used. Third, add PoS as a block generator, define a decent % on holdings and how often it will compound, and implement the Komodo interest button.

I feel that everyone is geared up to fight a battle you can;t win. So be smart, and fight a battle they aren't expecting to meet. There is nothing wrong with ASICs... just like any other weapon, it is how it is wielded and countered that determines the outcome. Meeting ASICs head on is like fighting a bull, meet it head on and lights out... but reroute it, wear it down and it will succumb.

DISCLOSURE: I own every one of the Equihash based coins, mined them all and have plenty of GPUs that I will continue to mine with... but I've also owned several BITMAIN and other vendor's ASICs since the first Antminers launched. I have no delusions of the damage ASICs can do to an unprepared community... but I've also seen the coins that survived and thrived and still do... even some that have come back from the dead. Both GPU and ASIC miners can coexist.

[aleqx]

all the others are always free to fork at any time and their motivations in dividing the community should be obvious to all.

This discussion thread is no longer helpful. I'll be waiting for the vote. It was only a matter of time that some entitled individual comes along to say "if you don't like it then fork it and make it better and piss off, else stfu".

without a modicum of understanding of the weight of their words, technical implications or even an afterthought for the developers and domain experts.

Leaving aside the attitude towards others, the developers of this open-source project are not doing it for free. They initiated a project which relies on mining, deciding to take a fee. If you want to see them as martyrs then go ahead. I see them as professionals, and I respect them as I respect all professionals. I however reserve a right to request that they take my voice in consideration when going forward because I most certainly want to continue to use their product and support the project. I actually like this team very much.

I'm certainly glad you're not part of the Zen team because if they told me to "fork it or stfu" then I would most certainly not pay any attention to Zen any more and would recommend against it.

[PeaStew]

What vote is that?

[aleqx]

What vote is that?

Really? ...

[koljenovic]

@aleqx Yes, cutting the first half of the sentence does it right. I will state it once more, in certain words, that all the people wishing harm on the project should fork, and not wishing for it to improve should fork immediately, I am very sorry if you do find yourself in that group.

Also saying that you see developers as professionals and then stating that the developer fee is taking from the miners is a malicious statement at best.

[Spiral11]

I would like to see more testing done with the 144,5 equihash params which have been mentioned several times in this thread. Ideally we need to obtain a Z9 beforehand to see if that change is sufficient in preventing it from working but from what I have read there are also other benefits to using these parameters regardless and the change is trivial to implement in comparison to alternatives like changing algorithm. The amount of time it would take to maintain asic resistance indefinitely is likely much better spent on continuing development on other things instead and I feel ASIC's are not going anywhere so the goal should not be to try resist them forever but rather just attempt to delay them until more manufacturers can produce them and competition is born. This would lead to more fair distribution.

Ideally the param change could be included in the upcoming July fork if testing goes well.

[RayAcayan]

Let the free market decide. No one is forcing miners to use ASICs, and we shouldn’t be forced to not use them either. Also, the Equihash GPU market is already centralized under NVidia, which will be releasing more powerful graphics cards very soon.

Suppose you block this Bitmain ASIC now. Then NVidia comes out with a new graphics card next month which can also do 10 KH/s at 300 watts. Then didn't you just kill off the competition and grant a new monopoly to NVidia?

The ZenCash ethos of freedom includes the freedom to mine with Bitmain ASICs instead of NVidia graphics cards, not be forced to choose one over the other. Having Bitmain as another option will lead to more decentralization, not less. And if there is some vulnerability later discovered in NVidia graphics cards, this could possibly allow a single actor to gain control over the entire network, and the entire privacy ethos of ZenCash is destroyed.

I am a huge supporter of ZenCash, and look forward to resolving this situation soon, and mining more ZEN in the years ahead.

[NagyGa1]

@RayAcayan Probably missed what happened to BTC. ASIC 'decentralization' decentralized mining to a few mining farms in China, vs the current Equihash state of affairs where mining is totally centralized to small miners worldwide, including places like Venezuela where it is a life and death affair, mining with centralized Nvidia and AMD hardware.

[moyumz]

@rayacayan

The difference between Nvidia & Bitmain is that Nvidia produces the chips and sells them to partner manufacturers such as Evga, Asus, Gigabyte, Galax, Colourful, MSI, Inno3D & Etc.. which then adds the other necessary components to finish off the product then bring it to market.

Bitmain produces the ASIC's in-house, don't have any manufacturing partners nor provide reference designs in order for partners to develop the ASIC.

In regards to production and accessibility... i think its clear which is more "decentralised" or reinforces "free market" principles.

Apple's to Orange's here mate.

[PeaStew]

@moyumz those are just different business models, it's still a free market if someone innovates a better product and uses it exclusively. Why do we decry a company willing to invest in innovation, shouldn't we more annoyed that others aren't doing more to compete?

[moyumz]

@peastew

If Bitmain was to adopt/had adopted a similar business model to Nvidia or AMD, then there really wouldn't be a debate over this.

I was challenging the "Nvidia Monopoly" case that was made. I'm not here to debate innovation, i am here to advocate for more participation within the network. If an ASIC was extremely accessible and affordable to most in this world, then i would not have bothered "resisting".

Yes, i agree.. we should be annoyed that companies such as Halong, Bitfury, Avalon & etc are not being competitive enough.

[amanalar]

Would people rather bitmain didn't sell the z9, and they just continue mining in stealth under the guise of GPUs.

Look at the GPU market. I'm a small time miner and I can't afford these GPU prices. I don't have connections to get p106/104s. Both AMD and Nvidia have recently been on a tear about limiting GPU's purchases to gamers. Retailers are doing bundles now to make sure these go to gamers.

I understand a lot of you guys have big investments in your mines, but come on every single GPU manufacturer has gouged customers and retailers for the past 5 months. There are small groups buying up 100's and 1000's of GPU. You're going to tell me that's decentralization?

I can't walk into a bestbuy and buy a 1080ti, I live near a microcenter and I can't even get one there. How many 1000+ GPU farms are there do you think? How many in america alone? Is that what's being called decentralization?

So I get nobody likes bitmain. I'm pretty sure everyone will agree bitmain likes money. Do people think bitmains goal is to crash a currency? I'm guessing no. They probably could easily get to 70% of btc hashrate but they don't. I'm willing to bet everything that they could probably capture 90% of any equihash coin. I know that won't happen because they love money and they know the consequences of doing that.

They are doing a controlled release of 1 per user. To me it feels like a reset button to put us all at even playing level fields, and I for one welcome that.

[nikmit]

@PeaStew

Why do we decry a company willing to invest in innovation, shouldn't we more annoyed that others aren't doing more to compete?

That's just not fair - I am yet to see anyone in this discussion find fault in Bitmain's willingness to invest in innovation. There were many people who did find fault in other aspects of their practices though, like getting their products to 'call home' and putting in the effort to at least lay the groundwork for remotely controlling the Antminer such that they can crash a coin by turning off the vast majority of hash power. The first time I read that I didn't quite take it as a proven fact, more a likelihood - but the link provided by @LordMajestros is very credible.

Bitmain are producers of hardware, releasing the source of the software that runs on it should not harm their profits as no one can make chips with that source code. On the contrary it should improve profits because people would accept them much easier - still they choose to keep it secret.

If you look back through the posts you will find a few more very good arguments against Bitmain, but unless I have gone selectively blind you will not find arguments against its innovation.