I go with whatever Monero has done to circumvent the issue.
This is not an issue of ASICs, but general a general plan for the future (ASICs included, but not the only thing)
Additionally, Dero leads, doesn’t follow 
1 Like
Sharding can possibly work with SC, Enigma’s whitepaper proposes distributed private SC computation where work is partitioned between randomly selected subsets of nodes.
Re: buying a lot of coins and dumping them can only kill a PoW coin when mining energy cost is above coins mined profit and only the adversary will find it economical to keep mining to take over the network. For a PoS coin unless they scoop up most of the coins after a series of pumps and dumps price does not matter because mining cost is close to zero.
In essence it is easier to accumulate sufficient PoW power than PoS because hardware supply is unlimited and price for hashing power incremental increase drops with scale while the # of coins is limited and price (hashing power) rises with scale.
Ethereum Sharding Protocol is working on a similar solution, where validator nodes are randomly sampled on P2P networks.
Enigma functions off-chain. How relative that comparison would be if Dero is running everything on-chain, and with sharding between PoS and PoW.
Then we agree on that PoS would be much harder to kill.
We still need @DEVELOPER entry on the subject to know in which direction we can continue brain storming, and to confirm if our ideas actually make sense, or are just gibberish 
Did CryptoNight Heavy ever solve this issue?
"4. Significant expansion of the scratchpad would require an increase in iterations, which in turn implies an overall time increase. “Heavy” calls in a trust-less p2p network may lead to serious vulnerabilities, because nodes are obliged to check every new block’s proof-of-work. If a node spends a considerable amount of time on each hash evaluation, it can be easily DDoSed by a flood of fake objects with arbitrary work data (nonce values).
One of the proof-of-work algorithms that is in line with our propositions is CryptoNight, created by Bytecoin developers in a cooperation with our team. It is designed to make CPU and GPU mining roughly equally efficient and restrict ASIC mining."
My second question would be: What’s stopping an ASIC manufacturer from making very minor changes to their next batch? A second 2mb pipeline with associated upgrades for example.
If CryptoNight Heavy is the way to go, did they actually solve the ASIC problem, did the solve they botnet issue or just cripple all CPU users?
2 Likes
Thank you as well, I have been trying to get back to add more to your very appreciated and well thought out post.
Edit: I’m still working to get back to you, I’m just giving your posts very thorough thought. Even though they’re gone I’m still considering the content. Thank you again btw, it did spark some creativity on this end.
This is not an issue of ASICs, but general a general plan for the future (ASICs included, but not the only thing)
Additionally, Dero leads, doesn’t follow
It’s great to know that Dero leads which is also what I want. But the spirit of Free software is not to re-invent the wheel but to build upon what’s already available which could be awesome. If what’s available is not re-usable, then we can always write a new software to solve our problem.
You are right that this thread is not about ASICs, but I hope you do know that allowing ASICs to mine on the blockchain can drive a lot of people away from here. Anyways, as long as everything is alright no one cares.
1 Like
Re: DDoS due to the necessity to check new block hashes, there are some algos that are much more efficient to verify but it helps the pools and not so much protects from fake block attack, the best strategy there is perhaos a smart ban algo.
I have not looked at the details as I was only reading an announcement on the Sumo reddit pages, but I was reading last night that fireiceuk has apparently come up with some new sort of PoW algo which IF I read it correctly is a randomly generated variable PoW scheme. Might be worth looking into that some more.
@mojo, the ASIC power efficiency is illusionary - it /only/ applies relative to FPGAs/CPU type devices. In a network populated exclusively by ASICs, the hash rate rises by at least an order equal to the increase in efficiency of the ASICs to maintain the required emission rate. The correct way to think about it is the energy/coin emitted - which is tied to the network hashrate /and/ the power efficiency with the latter two maintaining an equilibrium
I think the correct term would be energy per block, but I agree with you regarding the overall efficiency thing. It’s a very good point.
I have left it here for ref … I must have been tired last night, but the piece on fireiceuk’s work referenced above is about speeding up nodes not anti ASICs - sorry for the misdirection - I think I was conflating two different things I was reading. Can’t recall where the one on a variable PoW was seen sadly …
Yes, I think you are right …