Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

chainparrot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 179 posts

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#161

Post by cowtools »

rhodorhoades wrote: post #156
cowtools wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can use my phone to CPU mine with https://github.com/XMRig-for-Android/xmrig-for-android albeit at a very low hashrate. IDK about GPU mining though, seems like that could be more useful. But if you root your android device you can pretty much install anything you would on a linux system, with exceptions. Also, I don't see why you couldn't just distribute a defi app on android as an APK, including tornado cash. I do…

What you are describing is against androids terms of service and can find your entire google identity banned. > Crypto is not heavily censored in the US. I mean maybe, but it depends on what state you live in. There are major roadblocks being put in place by powerful entities. I have to use VPNs, different distribution/ platforms, .onions, NATS, and other bits of technology to get around those roadblocks and use the…

>What you are describing is against androids terms of service and can find your entire google identity banned.

Distributing an APK? There is nothing google can do about this. I never accept google's terms of service because I use an AOSP distro like calyxos or grapheneos

>There are major roadblocks being put in place by powerful entities. I have to use VPNs, different distribution/ platforms, .onions, NATS, and other bits of technology to get around those roadblocks and use the technology as I see fit.

The cryptocurrency is only as decentralized as its development infrastructure.

>Ensuring privacy is money laundering? Please tell.

It can be prosecuted as money laundering if you are offering a service (tornado cash, wasabi, coinjoin, etc.). If it is a passive feature of the network (zcash, monero, etc.) then there is no one to prosecute.

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#162

Post by literallyWTF »

dang wrote: post #159
literallyWTF wrote: post #9

Quoted post unavailable.

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (No, that's not a defense of cryptocurrency - just of HN comment quality, which may not be great to begin with, but which accounts like this destroy.)

Your requests to stop? That’s news to me. But yeah, sure whatever. “Not a defense of crypto”.

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#163

Post by dang »

literallyWTF wrote: post #162
dang wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (No, that's not a defense of cryptocurrency - just of HN comment quality, which may not be great to begin with, but which accounts like this destroy.)

Your requests to stop? That’s news to me. But yeah, sure whatever. “Not a defense of crypto”.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30227255 (Feb 2022)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29545243 (Dec 2021)

Re "not a defense" - I realize it's hard to believe; you kind of have to go through the experience. But I don't have the energy to care about what people are arguing anymore, especially not on the most worn topics.

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#164

Post by tromp »

latchkey wrote: post #155
tromp wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But these are all speculation coins without any solid utility. Nobody is going to build asics for coins that don't have demand. We saw this happen with Grin coin. Not only is Grin the one coin, out of many thousands, that strongly deters speculation with its pure linear emission, but it did in fact have ASICs built for it (the Ipollo G1/G1-mini).

Heh, hi tromp, you must have a grin filter? ;-) I still stand by what I said... grin doesn't have any demand (the price is in the dumps and it has no utility)... nobody is going to pay $9k for an asic to earn pennies. how many of those things have people actually bought?

Despite its anti-speculative emission, Grin still has more demand than all but 25 PoW coins [1] and a G1-mini ASIC miner costs as little as $289. Since 1 miner does about 1.2G/s the overall graph rate of 8830 G/s suggests about 7360 of these have been bought.

[1] https://www.f2pool.com/coins

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#165

Post by mbesto »

samkon wrote: post #158
mbesto wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gold bars are technically "decentralized". No one controls the supply (e.g. there isn't a sovereignty that creates/destroys them), and I can technically just dig them up out of the ground.

You’ve articulated why people call Bitcoin “digital gold”.

Totally. So what's the advantage of using crypto over a bar of gold then?

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#166

Post by latchkey »

tromp wrote: post #164
latchkey wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, hi tromp, you must have a grin filter? ;-) I still stand by what I said... grin doesn't have any demand (the price is in the dumps and it has no utility)... nobody is going to pay $9k for an asic to earn pennies. how many of those things have people actually bought?

Despite its anti-speculative emission, Grin still has more demand than all but 25 PoW coins [1] and a G1-mini ASIC miner costs as little as $289. Since 1 miner does about 1.2G/s the overall graph rate of 8830 G/s suggests about 7360 of these have been bought. [1] https://www.f2pool.com/coins

No wonder the price is so low... all the miners just dumping on retail in order to make their capex back.

I appreciate that you tried to make a coin and that your algo is actually pretty interesting... but it is also too bad you didn't do a memory hard algo and be in a position to capture the 18m+ GPUs that are about to need a new home.

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#167

Post by tromp »

latchkey wrote: post #166
tromp wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite its anti-speculative emission, Grin still has more demand than all but 25 PoW coins [1] and a G1-mini ASIC miner costs as little as $289. Since 1 miner does about 1.2G/s the overall graph rate of 8830 G/s suggests about 7360 of these have been bought. [1] https://www.f2pool.com/coins

No wonder the price is so low... all the miners just dumping on retail in order to make their capex back. I appreciate that you tried to make a coin and that your algo is actually pretty interesting... but it is also too bad you didn't do a memory hard algo and be in a position to capture the 18m+ GPUs that are about to need a new home.

Many miners are not selling (dumping is when you unload your big premine, which Grin doesn't have), which is why there is limited liquidity on the few exchanges that list Grin. I The Cuckoo Cycle PoW family is memory hard and Grin supported GPU mining in its first two years, but long term everything turns to ASICs...

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#168

Post by latchkey »

tromp wrote: post #167
latchkey wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No wonder the price is so low... all the miners just dumping on retail in order to make their capex back. I appreciate that you tried to make a coin and that your algo is actually pretty interesting... but it is also too bad you didn't do a memory hard algo and be in a position to capture the 18m+ GPUs that are about to need a new home.

Many miners are not selling (dumping is when you unload your big premine, which Grin doesn't have), which is why there is limited liquidity on the few exchanges that list Grin. I The Cuckoo Cycle PoW family is memory hard and Grin supported GPU mining in its first two years, but long term everything turns to ASICs...

How would you know who's selling and who isn't? Given the limited liquidity, it would have to be miners since that is the only way to get it. I use the word dumping to mean that they are mining and selling.

ethash held out surprisingly well. certainly a lot of asics were sold, but it didn't fully knock out GPUs like say sha256 did with btc. where as grin... you changed your original tone on it and decided to embrace asics with specific changes to CC to support that.

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#169

Post by tromp »

latchkey wrote: post #168
tromp wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many miners are not selling (dumping is when you unload your big premine, which Grin doesn't have), which is why there is limited liquidity on the few exchanges that list Grin. I The Cuckoo Cycle PoW family is memory hard and Grin supported GPU mining in its first two years, but long term everything turns to ASICs...

How would you know who's selling and who isn't? Given the limited liquidity, it would have to be miners since that is the only way to get it. I use the word dumping to mean that they are mining and selling. ethash held out surprisingly well. certainly a lot of asics were sold, but it didn't fully knock out GPUs like say sha256 did with btc. where as grin... you changed your original tone on it and decided to embrace…

Yes, it's pretty much only miners selling, but only a small fraction of them sell on exchanges as apparent from the low volumes.

The original Cuckoo Cycle turned out to be rather ASIC friendly; the Cuckatoo variant even more so. But it's the Cuckaroo variants that saw the most changes to make them substantially more ASIC resistant.

Re: Blockchains by number of nodes/validators

#170

Post by latchkey »

tromp wrote: post #169
latchkey wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you know who's selling and who isn't? Given the limited liquidity, it would have to be miners since that is the only way to get it. I use the word dumping to mean that they are mining and selling. ethash held out surprisingly well. certainly a lot of asics were sold, but it didn't fully knock out GPUs like say sha256 did with btc. where as grin... you changed your original tone on it and decided to embrace…

Yes, it's pretty much only miners selling, but only a small fraction of them sell on exchanges as apparent from the low volumes. The original Cuckoo Cycle turned out to be rather ASIC friendly; the Cuckatoo variant even more so. But it's the Cuckaroo variants that saw the most changes to make them substantially more ASIC resistant.

Where else would they sell?
Post reply on HN