Do you want to see ASIC Resistance ?

  • Poll
  • Last Post 27 June 2018
No, as mining isn't Soferox core goal
4 Votes
No, I don't care
2 Votes
Yes, with a CPU Fixed/Heavy Ram
13 Votes
Yes, with a GPU Solution like ProgPoW
1 Votes
Soferox posted this 22 June 2018

Just curious where everyone stands on this. We have had many people mention this, and curious where people stand and if making a change this late is something people want.




Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Harry posted this 22 June 2018

Yes please

Soferox posted this 22 June 2018

If you'd like to see this recommend some algo's down here. Like cryptonight, etc.

bradtcad posted this 22 June 2018

How about a modified version of cryptonight as others are doing (

bradtcad posted this 22 June 2018


george posted this 22 June 2018

If you make a change, I'm for quantum-resistant. example opensource 

Other platforms are unnecessary work (they will be ASIC). This algo will be CPU for a while.

It will support marketing.

  • Liked by
  • bradtcad
Dynacaf posted this 22 June 2018

Would be a good idea

  • Liked by
  • george
tomaxx131 posted this 23 June 2018


you know this project better than anyone. So I trust you know what's best for this project. but if the community want to change. I'm ok too. How about DAG algorithm? 

rrobee posted this 24 June 2018

I would like to vote, but I'm just an average investor. Unfortunately, I do not understand the technical part. Which would be better?

Soferox posted this 24 June 2018

Technically aspect would be the mining aspect would be restricted to more everyday users and not large mining farms. Some people do not like this, and some do as it promotes a strong network in some cases. We are trying to gauge this as many users have spoken up about it.



george posted this 24 June 2018

ETh goes to a POS with a node. Nodes provide data processing. To have a node you will need xxx (100) ETH. People will fold. Is not that a better way? Mines will spoil the price by selling coins (POW) ... 

Do you really need such a power to have miners if ETH can do without them?

  • Liked by
  • bradtcad
Soferox posted this 25 June 2018

Eth has tried to switch to PoS like 4 times, and everytime they discover issues. PoS is a great idea as it zeroes the energy consumption of miners. However, it has its risk and some see PoS as potentially centralized. Right now I personally think PoW is a good system until someone comes out with something better. 

george posted this 25 June 2018

POW is good but not for new coins on the old protocol.

One pool with ASIC (one big miner) can have 90% SFX net hashrate and it's good centralization even with 51% attack.

Good may be a variant when members fold on the Node that does mining. It's also a POW, but the 500,000 SFX behind the Node could be a good variation. It prevents it from performing hardware to cover the costs and still sells SFX (already here a miner wrote). The node should have people who want it. Just an idea from ETH.

ltanyc posted this 25 June 2018

There is a great writeup about this topic here by a heavyweight crypto development team with much more cred than me. TLDR; ASICs are here to stay no matter what algo you choose.

I don't unerstand why so many people are jumping onto the ASIC resistance hype train. The reality is that no matter which currently avaliable algo you choose it will likely have an ASIC developed for it in the future if the financial insentive gets big enough. I don't think it's worth it to derails the roadmap for this project and switch it to addiferent algo; then find out 2 months later that effort was wasted because Bitmain just announced an ASIC for it.

  • Liked by
  • jaytrickett
  • 1Dave
Soferox posted this 26 June 2018

I think it is because many see ASIC as a form of centralization. I think that is biggest people have with it. Personally we don't see them as a huge threat, but we also want to be community driven, and listen to our users and really work with them. That is the reason behind the vote. 

george posted this 26 June 2018

Can you add POW with Node? Of course, if technically possible. Just changing the algorithm for the future does not really bring anything.

locohammerhead posted this 27 June 2018

I voted yes as it was what was promised on the whitepaper.  Scrypt was never part of the original plan that was pitched to investors.  Plus Scrypt isn't any more secure, if anything it's far less secure because of the sheer hashing power of the army of L3+ out there and how cheap it is to rent enough hashing power to perform a 51% attack on the chain.

It's much harder and far more expensive to try to run this kind of attack on a CPU only/high ram algo.  My PC has a AMD Ryzen threadripper 1950x with 128 GB of ram that I am willing to dedicate to mining soferox but only if we fork to a CPU only algo as promised in the whitepaper and run a coin swap.

Yes its going to take more time but IMO you can't take shortcuts here which is exactly what happened when the non-asic resistant algo scrypt was chosen.

locohammerhead posted this 27 June 2018

I do want to thank the soferox team for posting this poll.  Hopefully the team see's that the community overwhelmingly wants CPU only (as of right now its 13 for CPU only and only 3 against it) and implements it as soon as possible before any exchange listing, to avoid any extra charges from the exchange for running a coin swap and setting up a new wallet, making the swap overall easier to manage.

Soferox posted this 27 June 2018

Thank you for feedback.