[Nevermark]

You are twisting words beyon any coherent meaning.

> It's a proof that something is possible to show one example.

Agreed.

> the proof has been the historical behavior of miners after years of RandomX.

> Nobody said it would be eternally or entirely resistant to optimizations...

These are contradictory statements. If historical behavior was a proof, then it would be eternally and entirely resistant.

[hyc_symas]

The limit we set at the beginning was "no one can design a custom device for RandomX with more than a 2:1 efficiency advantage over general purpose CPUs". That is and will forever remain true.

In reality, no one has been able to build any device for RandomX that isn't actually a CPU. The closest thing to a "mining ASIC" is just a bunch of RISC-V cores.

[Nevermark]

I was intending to comment on poor wording or poor reasoning (I assume the former), not Monero.

I think what the evolving Monero team has done, for many years since inception, is wonderful to the point of inspiring. The thoughtful approaches it has consistently taken over many upgrades reflect a much greater level of competence, responsible goals, clever design, and a clearer consistent vision than all but a few alternative systems.

(Including better choices than Bitcoin, which seems to have completely elevated code stability over any problem resolution (user privacy/safety, transaction scalability, environmental damage, etc.). Stability over all non-critical features including ergonomics (i.e. transaction times) is a very strong, but legitimate choice. But not stability over basic failures/limitations relative to current function.)

Disclaimer/scope: I do not own Monero or any other cryptocurrency, but have in the past. My comments are purely about technology, with no financial/investment dimension.