Groestlcoin has been blowing up with exposure and the community has yet to hear the voice of a developer. Communication via discord has been nice, but hearing some written responses from developers over an “Ask Me Anything” would be reassuring to those having trouble establishing weather or not this coin is a pump and dump. The openness of the developers also allow for supporters to get a better grasp on what the goals are for the coin.

There have been a lot of questions lately, regarding the coin and it’s ASIC resilience. Thankfully this AMA helped clear things up, and even inspire some people who were considering getting in on this gem, to buy the dip.

My Top Picked Q&A’s

GRS has recently been promoted as ASIC resistant, but FPGA and ASIC implementations (Grøstl-256, Grøstl-512) have existed for the Groestl algorithm prior to GRS’s launch in 2014 ( source ). Is that not a concern and/or disingenuous marketing? Perhaps the community marketing has taken off on its own too much, thus spreading somewhat false info? – Metasophocles

Being ASIC resistant is about having fair and decentralised mining. Being ASIC resistant isn’t helpful if 1 pool controls over 51% of hashrate. That is not fair and decentralised at all and is subject to a 51% attack. There is no benefit being ASIC resistant if 1 pool/person controls over 51% hashrate. We would be worried if a pool would have over 51% hashrate on 1 pool than if there are ASICS for groestl. It is correct that Groestl algo is not asic resistant by itself. An ASIC can be made for any POW. The resistance comes from the threat and promise of changing the algorithm if one gets produced and marketed and if the community decides that we should hardfork. We will not hardfork if the community decides against it. If an ASIC is produced for the Grostl512 mining algorithm and the community decides to change POW, a new POW algorithm will be chosen and a hard-fork triggered. The Groestlcoin name can still be used due to the Groestl algorithm still being used for other parts of the currency (i.e. address creation) or we vote for a rebrand. – gruve_p

Are you guys open to changing the name? – exadude

A rebranding vote will take place in 2018. If there is enough support, a rebrand will take place. For now let the people adapt to the name, not the name to the people. – jackielove4u

What is your view on the development team remaining anonymous and how it will either go on to positively or negatively effect the coin? – IDGAFOS

This is an established coin with a reputable history of accomplishments, not some coin where I would want some arguable degree of comfort by looking at someone’s face. The point of blockchain is to have an open-source trustless privacy oriented system. Don’t trust anybody with your money. Trust the code. Faces dont give any trust to a coin. In fact it gives a security issue. – gruve_p