Bitcoin Forum
May 24, 2024, 06:50:40 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 »
221  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: FPGA development board "Lancelot" - official discussion thread. on: June 07, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
Hello,
I want to know how much will the dev kit cost.
Thanks.

69$.
include a platform cable USB, a USB stick for software, some link cables.
222  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: FPGA development board "Lancelot" - official discussion thread. on: June 05, 2012, 05:23:36 PM
got 4 samples today.... Cheesy

show some pics or it didn't happen Wink

spiccioli

 Cheesy

samples have full of small design bugs, already make a TODO list.

unfortunately, the firmware side is a bit delayed. i could only do the test by previous icarus bitsteam. hours for no error now. i hope they can make a breakthrough in the near future.

this afternoon, i tested the on-board power module at school's lab . it can provide a 16A continues current for each FPGA core, 25A peak. form 7~14A is a wide high-efficiency Zone (>85%). looks like Lancelot can become a very good development platform for various of third party bitsteams.

tomorrow i will take some photos. it's black night now:D
223  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: FPGA development board "Lancelot" - official discussion thread. on: June 05, 2012, 04:18:42 PM
got 4 samples today.... Cheesy
224  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Here is how to compensate bitstream developers on: June 03, 2012, 07:18:49 AM
Quote
AES-KEY within Spartan6 protects IP no way better, EldenTyrell however pointed me on that, so my delivery idea failed.

need explain..... Huh
225  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BitForce SC - full custom ASIC on: May 28, 2012, 04:39:22 PM
Can we order now?

Didn't take you long, did it?

No, seriously, this pre-announcement will pull the rug out from underneath all other vendors - the Icarus/Lancelot guy in mainland China, Stefan in Germany, the British guys, the American guys with their 6500 board, even the genius-level bitstream guys like EldenTyrell and Bitfury.

It's going to be a bloodbath.

personally, i think the " bloodbath"  "should" started around last year. a 1.05G/20W/499$ device "should" kill all of us, as you listed.

but we stand here before you now, truthfully unafraid. Grin
226  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: FPGA development board "Lancelot" - official discussion thread. on: May 25, 2012, 06:38:52 PM

<let's get it shorter.>


we are trying to solve the power problems and heat dissipation by multiple ways, if they work, i guarantee will tell you( in private). because I admire you about your detailed introduction about your design, we are really doing the same thing, but i have no plan to share it (before).

about the ASIC design, a 90nm ASIC can run a 32bit adder over 7GHz. but you need a "elite research group" instead of some " bad engineer group". but you see, in our design, a SHA-2 core is really small and simple, this architecture is relatively easy to do the optimize. the smaller, the better. i nearly for sure place 200+ 128-cycle hash cores is better than now 80+ of 64 cycle cores (maybe this is our next design).

one way here to resist 51% attack is to increase the total hash speed fast. now we need to find a way. i think a mass of small mining ASICs (in public' hands) is a good choice.

Keep in mind, you have to add 11 TH/s to get anywhere near a 51% attack, and at that point you would be mining ~3600 Bitcoin per day. If you are generating that much, it is actually in your best interest to *not* attack the network, and let someone else develop ASIC as the price increases because demand will remain the same but supply will slow down.

I know a number of people talk about what will happen when the reward halves, but what would happen if a large investor developed ASIC to control a significant stake of the Bitcoin network? Wouldn't it essentially be the same result if difficulty doubled as if the reward halved?

a better way is mining for them self at ordinary day, and do a accurate attack when some large transform processing.....  Cheesy
227  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: FPGA development board "Lancelot" - official discussion thread. on: May 25, 2012, 05:06:32 PM
So the real contest is time; 28nm vs ASICs.

no, i mean:

130nm ASICs will fuck 28 nm FPGAs to shit.  Cheesy

Haha, yes I know they will, but if the 28nms come out before the ASICs they will at least have a chance of entering the market Grin

no, i think 28nm FPGAs will never have chance.

too many things will happen in 2013 and 2014.

These things are what I'm excited to see. I need to get some sleep now!

About 28 nm FPGAs chances... I've counted approximately translation of FPGA into ASIC. for example if my design translated - it would get approximately 8.7 million transistors count. And it is comparable to Pentium II design, so what we have with Spartan-6 0.045 um (45 nm) is what you could get if you squeeze hard into 0.35 um ASIC.

But squeezing design so hard into ASIC would be difficult, as many errors will happen on the way. It is LIKELY that builders of ASICs would squeeze more or less kind of simple VHD design, which would give approx. 3 times worse performance, and then start gradually improve technology with about 3-4 month iteration with each try. I think ngzhang understands well, what design mistakes - when in simulators it works but in hardware does not means when it gets to ASIC production.

So back to issue about ASIC vs FPGA - I suppose that 45 nm equivalent FPGA of Spartan6 class like 0.18 um ASIC.
Then 28 nm FPGA Artix7 could be like 0.112 um ASIC (if just counted, but I suppose comparable to 90 nm more, because it has CARRY CHAIN IN EVERY SLICE, AND I HAVE ROUND DESIGN THAT USES THIS FACT, AND WHICH IS 20% smaller Spartan6 is really bad with their Slice X stuff).

Then interesting thing about FPGA prices. They will fall if volumes will be bulk. This is why I am insisting on making FPGA-based products better, with better pricing - to make it at least competitive against ASICs.

Also - costs for chip production for vendor like Xilinx or Altera is not that much than silicon costs.... So production Spartan6 or Virtex7 does not make much difference in raw material / work cost. If they would want - they could sell say 6.8 billion transistor chip for $60-70 and not for $1k-$2k for specific needs, still they would earn profits. And this is huge risk for ASIC builders. Such chip indeed would be very powerful and definitely would blow off low-end 90 nm ASIC solution. And this is what could happen - Xil or Altera will just lower prices for some specific application of their chip, to take share of this. But this will only happen of course if there will be more or less significant sales amount, say we get all-together to levels 10k chips per month.

So there's no "cheap and secure" entry into ASIC world. Those who go with 90 nm will still compete with FPGA. And it is just only about organization of FPGA sales and production, if FPGA devices vendors would have so high expenses, that they could not resist such ASIC.

The killing solution however would be to get 28-nm chip with SIMPLE design from first order. It is doable, I believe in about $4 - $6 mio. But I doubt that someone would invest it this day. At some day it will happen of course. I quoted multiple companies already about ASIC when did FPGA-based design, and typically 90nm with investments about $500k could blow off Spartans, but would be hard to compete against 28-nm.

So, please comment ? If this is just hobby for you and you won't like to stand head-to-head with upcoming ASIC or not ?

Why do you think that 28-nm would not compete ?

You probably have up to date worked the most on bitstream design as well. Interested to hear your point of view, where I made mistake ?






our design is still fixing some small bugs. i will talk with you about the design after it fully completed. at that time we will know if we can solve the problems that you have.

ASIC design is much more complex than FPGA's. simple synthesis will not work.
why i said a 130nm ASIC can defeat a 28nm FPGA? because 32bit adder in 130nm ASIC can operate over 3GHz, a 3-input 32bit adder can easily running over 1GHz. i really doubt a 28nm FPGA will running a 3-input adder over 600MHz, maybe only 500MHz.
a 130nm ASIC is really cheap now, but we must find some professional team to do this work, their salaries and their company management cost will charge a lot. that's the thing stuck me. otherwise a small mining chip will cost only 1$/ea if you build 100K of them.
i mean, taking risks for a ASIC just for mining (and earn bitcoins for benefit) is unreasonable, but i think their are someone who want to push forward the bitcoin applications and resist a 51% attack from Bank of America will consider to pay the bill. if succeed, sell 100K of 1G speed small chips will multiply the total hashing speed by 10.
51% attackers didn't need ASIC, just buy 50 of your 110G rigs (cost only 5M $), and then bitcoin dead. after that, sell the second hand chips, can get 30% money back.
228  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: FPGA development board "Lancelot" - official discussion thread. on: May 25, 2012, 05:29:43 AM
So the real contest is time; 28nm vs ASICs.

no, i mean:

130nm ASICs will fuck 28 nm FPGAs to shit.  Cheesy

Haha, yes I know they will, but if the 28nms come out before the ASICs they will at least have a chance of entering the market Grin

no, i think 28nm FPGAs will never have chance.

too many things will happen in 2013 and 2014.
229  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: FPGA development board "Lancelot" - official discussion thread. on: May 25, 2012, 05:17:25 AM
So the real contest is time; 28nm vs ASICs.

no, i mean:

130nm ASICs will fuck 28 nm FPGAs to shit.  Cheesy
230  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: FPGA development board "Lancelot" - official discussion thread. on: May 25, 2012, 05:11:48 AM
Sounds good!

I'm looking forward to seeing how Lancelot will compete with all of the newer FPGAs and possibly ASICs being thrown into the market.

ASICs will fuck all FGPAs to shit.
231  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: FPGA development board "Lancelot" - official discussion thread. on: May 25, 2012, 04:58:27 AM

there are some differences between both designs, so at first we will announce a update bitsteam for icarus ,  but will slower than Lancelot. this bitsteam will also used for Lancelot testing.
the reason is Lancelot have some special designs for power and heat dissipation, also some more parts for more functions.

notice that  BitFury Design have a high license fee for their bitsteam, but icarus bitsteam update will be free.

Lancelot will also have free bitsteam update Forever.

 Grin
232  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: FPGA development board "Lancelot" - official discussion thread. on: May 25, 2012, 03:56:56 AM
any updates?

yeah, some updates.
1:
firmware development is still underway, we hope it will be faster than BitFury Design. but i think everyone know about the difficulty now.

2:
get the PCBs yesterday, will do a trial-production next week (maybe on next Thursday i think, i need to wait for factory scheduling ). after that will do a PCB design revise, then push it to a low-volume production.

3:
pre-orders will be taken after both the firmware and hardware development is over.

 Grin
233  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: FPGA development board "Icarus" - DisContinued/ important announcement on: May 23, 2012, 04:25:31 PM
Insider information on an upcoming project?

My guess is xiangfu is selling his Icarus to make room for the Lancelots he'll be testing for ngzhang.

no... i will test them myself... Smiley
234  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BitFury 110GH/s per rack? on: May 23, 2012, 06:56:20 AM
On their website, they state:
Then after choosing serial round design it was very challenging to fit it exactly into 240 slices (8 x 32 area). As you see in snapshot image on the left, magenta color shows exactly two SHA256 rounds location. These double-SHA256 with round and round expanders and additional control logic fits into 240 slices. This took another month of development. Fitting in 240 slices was important to obtain good fill of XC6SLX150 right part.

I hate to break the news, but 8 x 32 is not 240. It is 256. At least, where I grew up.  Roll Eyes

So, what did they really do? Fit two rounds of SHA-256 into 240 slices, including control logic? I find that hard to believe.
Or fit two rounds of SHA-256 into 256 slices - I find that slightly easier to believe, but it still would be a major achievement.

i believe because we did just exactly the same.  2X 64cycle SHA256 core in 8X32 area, include control logic,  timing report is much over 300MHz.
the coding work is easy(maybe less than 50 lines.) but write the UCF files used month of time, and still have some small bugs now.  Smiley

My point was, that 8 x 32 is not 240. It is 256.
If you can fit this in only 240 slices, then maybe 16 x 15 is a better geometry, since 16 x 15 really is 240.
Or am I missing the point here?

i think it's really not important to a accurate number. our cores are using 256 slices. but only 64 clocks.

Or am I missing the point here?
Could it be related to the fact that a Bitcoin hash only needs 61 rounds instead of 64?

by special optimization on the arithmetic and setup pre-processors (certainly, inside the FPGA), it can reduce 3-4 calculate rounds.

I find it amusing people are comparing a non released product to something that is already operating and outputting real world numbers.

i think it's very close to us.
235  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BitFury 110GH/s per rack? on: May 22, 2012, 08:50:04 PM
Any word yet if the low end -7 series will have metal heatspreader.  I would imagine you could get 20 to 30 Mhz more out of the Spartans if it like trying to pull that heat through the low conductivity plastic package.

by our review, not only heat. Smiley
some thing other limit break out when we solved over-heat.
How were you solving the overheat? Liquid nitrogen? Grin

at present no comment, but
much easier than you think...  Grin
236  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BitFury 110GH/s per rack? on: May 22, 2012, 08:48:25 PM
On their website, they state:
Then after choosing serial round design it was very challenging to fit it exactly into 240 slices (8 x 32 area). As you see in snapshot image on the left, magenta color shows exactly two SHA256 rounds location. These double-SHA256 with round and round expanders and additional control logic fits into 240 slices. This took another month of development. Fitting in 240 slices was important to obtain good fill of XC6SLX150 right part.

I hate to break the news, but 8 x 32 is not 240. It is 256. At least, where I grew up.  Roll Eyes

So, what did they really do? Fit two rounds of SHA-256 into 240 slices, including control logic? I find that hard to believe.
Or fit two rounds of SHA-256 into 256 slices - I find that slightly easier to believe, but it still would be a major achievement.

i believe because we did just exactly the same.  2X 64cycle SHA256 core in 8X32 area, include control logic,  timing report is much over 300MHz.
the coding work is easy(maybe less than 50 lines.) but write the UCF files used month of time, and still have some small bugs now.  Smiley
237  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BitFury 110GH/s per rack? on: May 22, 2012, 08:06:56 PM
This thread is boring, it's just speculation on a very uncompetitive product.
Although the parts may not be very modern, the ideas and things surrounding it are very relevant and fun to discuss. Theoretically if designed correctly, it should be possible to replace all the little FPGA modules with 28nm models when those come along, or even specially designed ASICs.

28nm is still very far away.

on the -7 series the routing resource is far different form spartan6, so this design can not be simply transplant to -7 series, but this architecture is still useful.
Any word yet if the low end -7 series will have metal heatspreader.  I would imagine you could get 20 to 30 Mhz more out of the Spartans if it like trying to pull that heat through the low conductivity plastic package.

by our review, not only heat. Smiley
some thing other limit break out when we solved over-heat.
238  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BitFury 110GH/s per rack? on: May 22, 2012, 06:03:19 PM
This thread is boring, it's just speculation on a very uncompetitive product.
Although the parts may not be very modern, the ideas and things surrounding it are very relevant and fun to discuss. Theoretically if designed correctly, it should be possible to replace all the little FPGA modules with 28nm models when those come along, or even specially designed ASICs.

28nm is still very far away.

on the -7 series the routing resource is far different form spartan6, so this design can not be simply transplant to -7 series, but this architecture is still useful.
239  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Algorithmically placed FPGA miner: 245MH/s/chip and still rising on: May 22, 2012, 05:20:10 PM
on the personal front, i suggest stop doing any effort on these pipelined architecture.
240  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BitFury 110GH/s per rack? on: May 22, 2012, 12:04:24 PM
awesome design Grin

EDIT:

by review their design, i must say, they are real FPGA and arithmetic experts, well done.
with open mind too, they described their design method without reservation. i pay my tribute to them.

our new design is in very similar way, if we could solve the high-voltage-stabilized problem, we will share the method too.

 Grin
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!