The Chia Plot has posted few articles about a new crypto that Max (MM plotter creator) is working on. Here is one of those articles:
If you read that article, it looks like this is how chia should be implemented from day one. If I could wish for anything more, I would like to see @gil helping with the UI side, and if needed @Chris22 / Flex helping on the pool side. That would make it a complete package ready from day one.
At least, I will be dusting off my plotter.
Sounds interesting, but I’ll await more details about the financial, like premine , total coin no, emission curve etc.
Certainly one to watch.
Its very impressive, but there are tradeoffs. There is no CLVM for one thing, so no smart contracts.
This is very good. We needed the 158th chia fork 
This not a fork. A fork is cloning everything developed by others and changing a few lines of code.
This is thoroughly understanding the chia consensus algorithm and building another PoST blockchain on it, with it’s own design goals.
It will take a lot of time and testing, still very early dawn but I admire the effort and think it’s fun to run a node to support the testnet.
Mad Max certainly hits a lot of Chia’s weak points. I would expect his client to be orders of magnitude more efficient than the Chia python client. And so the MMX network too: It’ll take more than a little dust to knock it over.
If it were compatible with Chia plots, I would be all over it. But since I’d have to replot and give up my Chia space, I’ll wait and see. I might regret that once MMX netspace has exploded 
I assume your farming test coins?
Will they be converted to real MMX ?
Getting nervous already? 
Short answer nope;-)
No nerves, but why miss out from not asking a question.
That is a wrong conclusion, I think. If the code is just more efficient / faster, it implies that also those storms will be more severe, so it could be a wash.
However, as Max has already proved, he is not just blindly copying the code using a faster tool, but also re-engineering it, so that could provide more resilience in those events (e.g., chia code applies the same settings to threadrippers as to RPis, basically screwing part of nodes right out of the gate). Whatever changes we do manually, can easily be done automatically, and this is where I would expect the biggest progress.
The sad part for chia is that instead of bashing him day one, when he came out with his plotter, they should offer him a job. Right now, this may be the first (kind of second after Chives) real path to jump ship.
Yes, yes, that was my point. I expect more than just a faster implementation of Chia’s python client. He has already addressed several of Chia’s structural issues, and I would expect him to also address peer management, which is one of the reasons Chia is so vulnerable to dust. And I imagine he uses a more efficient database than SQLite. Those would all make MMX more resilient.
And yes, Chia would have done themselves and the community a great favor if they had welcomed and worked with brilliant coders like Mad Max and Alex (from FlexPool). Fortunately it looks like they have opened more up recently.
I’ve felt for a long time now that Chia’s presumed development prowess is actually their greatest weakness. It is the one thing that keeps me from investing more heavily in farm or XCH coins.
Earlier in my life I spent over a decade as strategy executive in a large software company, pushing to renew our aging product platform, with a stubborn and prideful development department resisting anything they hadn’t invented themselves. It is a common issue among devs, and I recognize some of the signs from Chia.
I agree that NIH is a big problem, especially in bigger companies, although chia bashing all new projects is also pointing that way. Still, that usually points to a Peter Principle in higher up engineering management, not really devs per se. There is an old saying that fish stinks from the head. The head of development decides who gets what training, what procedures are used to improve, and what politics to play to CYA, and blame everyone else.
To me, the worst part is that chia is sending trolls to bully people to do damage control, instead of owning problems.
To end on a better note
I don’t think it is. During the dust attacks the blocks continued as normal. Some miners were affected and xchscan and chiaexplorer too but it didn’t even get a bit out of the way for the “blockchain” itself
The stink often comes from one or a few individuals, which may or may not be high level employees. In fact, they often go unnoticed except to those who know what to look for.
In the company I worked for, the entire attitude problem emanated from a single individual who was head of the dev team, although not head of the R&D department, nor a C level exec. He was a brilliant coder, but had an ego the size of Jupiter. We went through several changes in top management, but none of them had the guts to get rid of this guy – which almost certainly would have unlocked a flood of positive energy and development potential.
In Chia’s case, we have seen great signals on Reddit lately, with some very gracious comments from @hoffmang and @sargonas. If indeed there is a dev problem in Chia (and I could be wrong about this) I don’t believe they are the source of it.
MMX is interesting, it takes an engineer’s efficiency perspective to solving the high throughput of transactions problem. I’ve never seen any (PoW or similar) blockchain being able to process a thousand of transactions per second : if it works, it’ll help scale on-chain transactions. That alone has a lot of value for increasing security of small-value transactions.
I still think that Chia will remain the main source of income for any PoST farmer, because it was there first. And because small-value transactions don’t need to be very secure (LN and other L2 solutions is probably enough). Yet I’m still very happy to see MM develop a new project as ambitious as this. I hope he’s still planning to work on a GPU plotter too! Will be following the mainnet launch.
Having an unlimited amount of transactions at a very low cost is not necessarily a good thing
It can be worthwhile in authoritarian systems
I agree that the blockchain survived. But we cannot say it was unaffected, when many farmers large and small have been struggling with full nodes losing sync. Including many beefy nodes, because of the way peer management is currently implemented. @Jacek and others have posted extensively about this.
The main solution to harden the blockchain so far has been to raise minimum hardware requirements and put the DB on a fast SSD or NVMe. The full node performs a tremendous amount of writing to the database, including temp writes/updates. The last measurement I saw was ~60TB/year (including wallet) and it will only go up as transaction levels increase. 100TB/year is likely within a few months. So a decent grade SSD is needed. Or replacing it annually.
None of that is in itself unreasonable. But it does go against Chia’s goal of having hundreds of thousands of small farmers running low cost and low power hardware. I think netspace will be larger this time next year, but way fewer nodes because of small farmers leaving.
I believe a more efficient Chia full node than the current python/SQLite client would go a long way to counter this. FlexPool is working on one, and I hear that Chia is working on one too, written in Rust. They cannot come fast enough, if you ask me.
Part of decentralisation is having more than one client/node.
Flex must get there for the “greater good”
Far from all FlexPool farmers use FlexFarmer. And many run full nodes on the side. There has been a lot of misinformation about FlexFarmer. @hoffmang and @sargonas graciously admitted this recently on Reddit, explaining on Discord how they came to be misinformed by the people they asked to look into FlexFarmer.
To the extent that FlexFarmer keeps small farmers from leaving, it does more good than harm to the network. But no doubt that a more efficient full node will persuade many to run that instead. I will be one of them.
