I have a strong suspicion that CN/R _was_ ASIC'd at some point, but on a small scale. Around 10% of pre-fork network were ASICs or some other high efficient hardware.

Sumokoin stayed on CN/R, it has 37 MH/s nethash now and is unprofitable even on Vega: whattomine.com/coins/196-sumo-crypt…ost=0.05&hcost=0.0&commit=Calculate

So if it's unprofitable on Vega, then who mines it? Even farms with "free" electricity could just switch to ETH and get more rewards.

wow

" First, the ASIC, enclosing machine, and datacenter can be code-signed. This eliminates the need to worry about varying customer envi-ronments (temperature, customs cer-tification, 220-V/110-V compatibility, setup and tech support, shipping and returns, warranties, and so on) and enabling new cost, energy-efficiency, and performance optimizations."

so ASIC decentralization is a complete myth

add some user stories to the mix: bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210117.0

This is why it's too early to even think about switching to ASICs

gingeropolous: What do they mean with code signed?

selsta, i dunno. i assume some sort of data center industrial thing

Ive never heard that term in my life

And I've worked in datacenters my whole career

code-signing a DC?

Reading the paper now

Yeah I have no clue what hes talkin gabout lmao

The phrasing is implying that Bitmain and BitFury just mine in their own DCs which would make sense

I think it probably means "designed alongside each other".

co-designed

ahhh

code signed :D

Now that makes more sense

lmao

What a weird tyypo

linebreak

It's probably not a typo, but a line switch marker. see how envi-ronments is too.

ah

makes much more sense

Aeon: 91% of hashrate comes from one pool: miningpoolstats.stream/aeon

was it like this before the fork?

Aeon: 100% of hashrate comes from 34 miners

hard to still take Aeon seriously. Wownero has overtaken the role of Monero experimental net

mind if i ask... is that because of asics solely, or there's other reasons?

sech1: and XMV just went CN/R

waaat

or no they went "RandomV"

oh yes

it was italocoin that was CN/R

it's RandomX but with a V

I'm sorry, I'm getting my shitcoins in a twist

no changes in parameters

So we'll see how big or small a network has to be before it becomes a target of roving hashrate

I was pretty convinced that someone was gaming the Monero difficulty algorithm, throwing a big mining farm at the network

they're still doing it

driving the difficulty up, and then going away for a few hours

I'm seeing swings between 750 and 1300 MH/s on 60-blocks moving average

i still wanna find a way to easily track aws spot

it has stabilized a bit in the last few days though

that only gets easier for them, the more CPU-oriented coins there are. they can keep making a profit from their hardware, just retarget to different coins and circle back later

MoneroOcean fucks XMV already

with more hashrate than their entire network

and it's all automatic at this point

there goes peer again, resetting people's connections...

sech: On CN/R increase in sumokoin could be coming from dead miners in monero pools being diverted.

I remember minexmr admin showing some stats of miners that haven't updated. Pools could just be diverting all this to sumokoin.

sure why wouldn't they

<sech1> Oh right. I know for a fact that xmrig redirects all cn/r donation traffic to sumo.

So a single coordinated entity would have ~600MH/s? Not the most comforting thing to know

it could be a single entity, or it could be multiple entities that have the same scripts

if you control a large swath of compute, you could automate when to mine etc. watch price and network diff etc

presumably these parameters would be similar for many actors

but yes, simpler solution is one entity

I don't think a single entity has 600 MH/s. Moving 60-block average can swing +-20% just because of luck variation.

But someone certainly has 100 MH/s.

600 MH/s would easily make TOP 5 supercomputer list