undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdgacmu1mo ago0 comments

Sorry, I was not quite saying my fun was the reason, but that the failure to create something GPU/ASIC resilient was the more general underlying cause.

But be careful about "proven" in that last sentence - the absence of a solution isn't exactly proof, it's more of a proof that _either_ it is possible to create an ASIC-resistant algo _or_ it has not been worthwhile to ASIC-ify it given the economics of mining XMR and the research & NRE required to do so. I haven't the foggiest which of those two it is, mind you, just that there are a few remaining valid explanations.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

rschneid1mo ago· 2 in thread

It's a proof that something is possible to show one example.

In this case the claim was ASIC-resistant PoW is possible, and the proof has been the historical behavior of miners after years of RandomX. Nobody said it would be eternally or entirely resistant to optimizations...

Nevermark1mo ago

You are twisting words beyon any coherent meaning.

> It's a proof that something is possible to show one example.

Agreed.

> the proof has been the historical behavior of miners after years of RandomX.

> Nobody said it would be eternally or entirely resistant to optimizations...

These are contradictory statements. If historical behavior was a proof, then it would be eternally and entirely resistant.

hyc_symas1mo ago

The limit we set at the beginning was "no one can design a custom device for RandomX with more than a 2:1 efficiency advantage over general purpose CPUs". That is and will forever remain true.

In reality, no one has been able to build any device for RandomX that isn't actually a CPU. The closest thing to a "mining ASIC" is just a bunch of RISC-V cores.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse