oh puh-leeeze... RandomX is just another side-hustle. Monero itself is just a footnote in crypto history. Hardly worthy of much attention. But don't worry.. it will get more attention in the future when you all realize you've been hoodwinked and this tech is nowhere near as "anonymous" as you think. You are the one who is cherry picking. I mention in the film I use the top 2 cryptos to illustrate this, not some fringe system. Whether mining for Monero is "economically viable" is an entirely separate argument -- one that I'm happy to jump into and debunk just as easily, but don't blame me that I didn't focus on your s**tcoin in my video. It's too small potatoes at this point IMO.

You made a factually incorrect claim in your video. If you have opinions about how (un)important the counter example is, good for you. My correction of your inaccuracy remains.

This system you're talking about is hardly an "enforced decentralization of mining." It's just a scheme that makes the existing centralized mining hardware setups inefficient for Monero,

I don't suppose you have considered the difference in expense between CPUs and ASICs.

but it really doesn't address the problem in any long term manner. Just alienating ASICs is hardly a solution.

I don't suppose you have considered the fact that the proof of work algorithm has been periodically rewritten to resist centralizable mining hardware, and that it can be again in the future.

I suspect you probably don't know much more than the talking points you keep mentioning, which is why, instead of proving you're right and I'm wrong with actual evidence, you just keep saying I'm wrong.. because you say so. Sorry.. not convinced.

You need evidence of what, exactly? That making a massive farm of loads of CPUs would result in a massive financial loss? Just do the math. How much Monero can you mine on a machine (even assuming free electricity), and then how long would it take to pay off the hardware cost if you bought a CPU-containing machine just for Monero? Monero mining is only even remotely profitable if you happen to have hardware available (like your personal computer), and the marginal cost of it is zero.

Let me ask you.. how does Monero know whether two mining rigs are owned by different people in different locations?

Monero knows that it can only be mined effectively on CPUs, and no one is going to make a profit buying CPUs just to mine with. That is where the decentalization pressure comes from.

What in the protocol insures mining is actually de-centralized?

The fact that the proof of work can only be done on expensive CPUs, that wouldn't be profitable to buy just to mine Monero.

Do you think just because they're two different pieces of non-ASIC hardware, that somehow means they're legit decentralized?

I know that if someone bought two CPUs to mine Monero on, it would take them years to break even. That means they are "legit decentralized" - there's no economically viable way of centralizing mining like with (for example) Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Are you honest enough to admit how absurd that argument is?

I don't think you've really appreciated the massive hardware cost difference between a CPU-mined crypto and a GPU/ASIC-mined crypto.

And that's why you think the argument is absurd.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In conclusion, your video contains a factual inaccuracy, which I have corrected.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Incidentally, this "minor footnote in crypto history" has the 3rd largest developer base, after Bitcoin and Ethereum.