[freeone3000]

That simply makes two currencies - before-fork, and after-fork. There's no rule that the one that "should" win does, especially in the face of large computing power making the former more attractive. See Bitcoin Cash, versus Bitcoin Classic.

[ChainOfFools]

OP may be referring to algorithms that rotate between a fixed set of widely dissimilar POW puzzles, in an attempt to make it discouragingly expensive to design and fabricate a rather complex ASIC requiring a lot of die space.

IIRC it didn't work for long (the of promoters of these tokens were likely well aware of this), and ASICs for them appeared anyway, once an ROI probability threshold was reached.

[Erlich_Bachman]

That's just not an accurate nor truthful account of what happens in practice.

The example you gave has nothing to do with changing the PoW function to counteract ASICs. Both Bcash and bitcoin classic were forked because of completely different reasons, and had people who believed in those reasons defend the new forks and run the node software etc. For example XMR has been doing ASIC-deterrent forks for years now with great success.

[atweiden]

In 2018, 50-60% of Monero hashrate was rumored to be from secret ASICs. How “successful” at warding off ASICs could hard forking a coin’s hashing algorithm really be if it doesn’t stop the ASIC manufacturers from building ASICs for any given algorithm?

Also it seems clear that Monero’s purported “ASIC resistance” is very much a social contract — requiring constant vigilance to uphold — one which isn’t guaranteed to be strictly adhered to over the long run, particularly as the cost/benefit analysis gets murkier.

[Erlich_Bachman]

> a social contract

Just like the rest of the cryptos that require all the participants to use specific protocol and software and agree on specific rules.