In my day job I work in a place that’s doing work developing artificial intelligence and machine learning. There’s a tool that an engineer developed that runs on AI that, for fun, can look at the text of a blog post and write a response using the words and jargon of the topic. One of the problems with these AI tools is that they end up throwing out buzzwords randomly without any real sense and it produces sentences that are technically correct and have buzzwords frequently used in industry----but despite that, the output frequently just doesn’t make sense.
I’ve been trying to understand your point here for the last 20 minutes and it feels like one of those situations. In spite of your use of buzzwords, I can’t make heads or tails of the point you’re making here.
If it wasn’t clear enough, I was defending @Taek’s statement that with blockchains “you don’t have to subscribe to a political system that you don’t like”. You cannot easily opt-out of a traditional political system that you don’t like, unless you physically migrate to a different regime. It is much easier to opt-out of a blockchain* and you also have different options on how you opt-out**. Equally important, in order to opt-out of a crypto community, you have to have opted-in in the first place, hence my use of the word “voluntary”.
*should I be more explicit and mention that with blockchains like with any other public tech you get into politics real quick, hence we can say they are political systems?
**either move to a different community that better matches your liking or fork
Still not following the logic here. We’re both starting from the same place, @Taek’s statement about “you don’t have to subscribe to a political system that you don’t like.” This sentence was made to support this point: “Sia’s fork demonstrated this in a very strong way.”
I’m not trying to be difficult, I’d genuinely like to understand what it is that you and Taek are trying to describe here as the justification for the fork. The words you are both using to describe this is full of buzzwords and disjointed out-of-context philosophical amorphisms. It’s just not making sense.
In the context of Sia, a Sia user had three choices:
join the Sia fork that bricked non-Obelisk ASICs
continue being part of/mine on the network where all ASICs are still mining fine
disgusted by what just happened dump all of her Siacoins for a different asset
From what I understand, most users moved to the Obelisk fork. I guess some stopped following Sia altogether but it’s impossible to quantify that loss. Nobody forces anyone to make a choice. All of them have pros and cons. But users still get to choose. Users also chose to be part of the Sia network in the first place.
So Tomas,to buy or not buy? Obelisk to finished the production,does it mean that GRIN cryptocurrency has reached the finish line and buying mining like innosilicon G32 is money lost? Thanks in advace for yours reply.
Good choice if you want to avoid risk. Buying mining equipment is inherently a high risk position especially on a young coin. Just buying the coin directly is far less risky as you have the option to set limit orders and just dump them on the open market if they fall more than you are comfortable with. If you preorder an ASIC your money is going to be locked up for months while you wait for delivery and literally none of us have any reliable information as to what the price will be at that time.
It’s not even the price that worries me, it’s the volume. I have no idea how many people will buy these machines, or if the manufacturer has been mining with them. Grin’s interface, while great for privacy is really complicated compared to most cryptos out there, if a ton of people want to mine it but no one wants to use it because a simple transfer is too complicated, then it will crash really fast. And specially now that Grin is phasing out GPU mining, I can’t trust the dev team. And announcing it a month before ASICs begin to show up, that’s just really poor taste. It reminds me of when Zencash decided not to change algo and changed their name to Horizen, like that’s fine, completely ignore the people that got you where you are…
Basically what I’m saying is even if it was sure to be profitable, I wouldn’t mine Grin on an ASIC out of principle. There are plenty of projects out there.
Well listen up guys. Grin is a serious project. It will be worth of 1500-3000$ in 6 yrs or so.
Fuck ASICs, just mine on what you have, buy the best GPUs when you have money, you can still sell them later. But ASICs are just a big risk. It can end up like useless HW crap.
Anyway, wait for better price, like 1,65 or less Eur, then buy! Make some checkpoints of your wished balance. Then buy even more when it sinks more.
Transfer is not complicated unless you don´t use that retarded 713 wallet. Be advanced and use Niffler, the best wallet you can have for Grin now. later the transactions will be even more easy.
Just accumulate and wait, the fruit will ripen.
Thanks for watching, like and subscribe!
Ask the earlier version of yourself
“In short, preventing single chip ASICs no longer seems worthwhile or feasible, but an earlier version of me thought it was, which had led me to the phase-outs”
Also, picking up slack with the secondary graphrate in the worst case scenario is not very seductive. I’m actually surprised you would answer anything to a GPU miner. That’s just me though.
All that (specifics of the ASIC PoW) has nothing to do with your
We support GPU mining in the first two years, with a predefined minimum share of rewards. As planned and announced from before launch. So what do you mean with
The Developers of Grin may have been some of the most active in the community when it comes to making sure miners and sellers can transact & mine, but do so with ease, just look through the forum.
(C31) & (C32) were the ASIC targeted PoW’s and C32 wasn’t feasible. Gpu mining is still here for the next 1 year & 4 months
“In short, preventing single chip ASICs no longer seems worthwhile or feasible, but an earlier version of me thought it was, which had led me to the phase-outs”
This is about the planned phase-out of the smallest cuckAToo (Asic Targeted) size. Originally the minimum size of cuckatoo graph would kept increasing over time, but this has been put on hold after phase-out of C31. It has nothing to do with the GPU phase-out (cuckARoo, Asic Resistant), which was planned, announced and enforced in the code already well before mainnet launch and has been untouched since.
