>until now, no-one has chosen to flex like this.

The two networks have wildly different proof-of-work algorithms, they're incompatible. A BTC ASIC will never mine Monero, ever.

▲

soganess 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I ask this not as a gotcha (I don't know the first thing about this), but rather because I'm interested: How do you know not "ever"?

Like, trivially, it's an ASIC, so I can use it to simulate a von Neumann[*] machine, hence I can use it to run whatever algorithm I want. Would that be more efficient than using a modern OoO superscalar? Almost surely not, but that doesn't mean it can't be done, just that it shouldn't be done that way.

*: I realize that the ASICs used in Bitcoin miners don't have dram access, but that isn't a general limitation of ASICs, just those ASIC 'chips' (and maybe not even those chips, just their implementations in bitcoin miners)

EDIT: Thanks to everyone who answered! For some reason, I had it in my head that the way we implement fixed function stuff in an ASIC was basically the same as a "burn once" FPGA. Brains gonna brain.

	▲	tux3 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>Like, trivially, it's an ASIC, so I can use it to simulate a von Neumann[*] machine No, that doesn't follow at all. An ASIC doesn't mean a general purpose CPU or FPGA. A chip that only knows how to do, say, video decoding is an example of ASIC. The video chip can't do bitcoin, the bitcoin chip can't do monero. They're not general purpose.
	▲	BoppreH 4 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You might be confusing ASICs with FPGAs. You can't reprogram an ASIC, the algorithm is fixed at design time, and the chip built for this single purpose.
	▲	blibble 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Like, trivially, it's an ASIC, so I can use it to simulate a von Neumann[*] machine asic does not mean turing complete good luck simulating a von neumann machine on a sha256 accelerator

▲

rokkamokka 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's not true for all altcoins however

▲

yieldcrv 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Its always hilarious when someone launches an L1 with an algorithm everyone can already dominate and it gets attacked immediately

Last time I saw that was on photonics processor blockchains

▲

scyclow 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Pretty much everything other than bitcoin, monero, and dogecoin are running proof of stake these days anyhow, so it kind of doesn't matter.

	▲	OutOfHere 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Litecoin goes in that PoW group too. In fact, Litecoin has an optional privacy feature called MWEB, which is probably why Litecoin too got kicked off of being named on some conventional news sites.
	▲	subsistence234 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		KAS is PoW, at ~240 times the hash-rate of LTC, ~120 000 000 times the hash-rate of XMR, and 0.0007 times the hash-rate of BTC. Obviously not really comparable... https://poolbay.io/coins

▲

idiotsecant 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's not at all relevant to parent post's point. BTC mining is famously centralized, and continues to get more so. It is inevitable that a manufacturer of BTC asics with access to cheap power will become large enough to control 51% of the hash. It's inevitable. It's bad system design - it makes being able to manufacture your own custom silicon table stakes to run a financial system for some reason.

BTC will have to move to a proof of stake design to survive. It's unavoidable.

▲

ifwinterco 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

That is debatable, but also besides anything else, changing to PoS means changing the tokenomics (some tail emission for staking rewards, no 21m hard cap), which means it's incredibly unlikely to happen

▲

ChadNauseam 4 days ago | parent [-]

why would staking rewards be any more necessary than mining rewards?

▲

ifwinterco 4 days ago | parent [-]

In the end state (after ~2140), mining rewards just come from TX fees. But true, it is possible you could just redistribute TX fees to stakers.

Post-merge ethereum is designed so that the gas fees and the staking rewards roughly cancel out on balance (so overall inflation is around zero), but they are decoupled so even if nobody is using the network you still get a staking yield

▲

eurleif 4 days ago | parent [-]

>so overall inflation is around zero

Pedantic point: monetary inflation is around zero, not necessarily price inflation (which is what people typically mean when they just say "inflation").

	▲	ifwinterco 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes sorry, important clarification. In theory if the entire world was on an ethereum standard with a steady state population, price inflation would also average out to zero

▲

LikesPwsh 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

BTC can't move to proof of stake because religious zealots would keep their money in the old fork.

It's doomed in general, see the cash fork.

	▲	latchkey 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Tokenized bitcoin.

▲

robocat 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> It is inevitable that a manufacturer of BTC asics with access to cheap power will become large enough to control 51% of the hash

The ASIC manufacturer would also need a backdoor. ASIC manufacturers don't control mining.

Large miners are unlikely to allow backdoors into their mining network.

	▲	fruitworks 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		ASIC miners often do control mining. They often mine with chips before they drop them in the public market
	▲	passivegains 4 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I think they mean the manufacturer would just keep most of the stock for themselves. Reminds me of that famous Scarface quote: "You should get high on your own supply, it's a great idea that won't end horribly."
	▲	idiotsecant 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>ASIC manufacturers don't control mining. I dont think you understand the BTC mining ecosystem