I don't have time to actually make this, but this is my proposal: MEMCOIN PROTOCOL1) Difficulty adjustment rate 3.5 days with the generation of 2016 blocks. Other properties regarding difficulty adjustment are also the same as for Litecoin.
2) Blockreward begins at 50 coins and decreases every 35 days (10 difficulty periods) according to the following formula:
reward = previous_reward * (1+(-0.07/10))^(10*0.10)
This leads to a 7% decrease in blockreward every 350 days, or a blockreward halving in a little under 10 years.
Finance/business people will recognize this as the formula for compounded interest.
3) Scrypt is used with the following scheme:
1. ChaCha20 for mix algorithm, because it's a little faster than Salsa20.
2. SHA256 followed by BLAKE256 followed by keccak256 (SHA3-256) for the crypt algorithm, to enhance circuit size in ASICs without strongly affecting hash speed. This should make memcoin more ASIC unfriendly.
and the following variables:
N = 1024
p = 1
r = variable
3.1) The scrypt parameter r is initialized as 128, so the initial memory required per scrypt process is 16 MB. The value of r will be multiplied by 3.5 every 1050 days (604800), e.g., a little less than 3 years after chain creation r will be 448 and the required memory will be 56 MB per thread. This is in keeping with Moore's law, and should ensure that the chain remains CPU/GPU-minable for a long time. Things to be done from a Litecoin fork: - Modification of scrypt miners to accept variable values of r and to utilize the new scrypt algorithm proposed (see https://github.com/floodyberry/scrypt-jane for different scrypt implementations) - Adding the variable r to each block - Implementing the new blockreward algorithm Benefits of the chain: - Long implementation time for blockreward decrease, so blockreward will not be ~1.5 for 50 years. - Progressive stepping for blockreward decreases of a little over a month - Very FPGA and ASIC difficult because of the massive memory requirements and large circuit size for cryptography algorithms, so CPUs/GPUs will be ideal for mining Release: Upon the building of the final binary of the bitcoin-qt and cpuminer fork from the source code, a couple extra blocks will be mined to ensure the binaries are functional and then the binaries and source will be compressed and encrypted in a 7zip file with 256-bit AES. This encrypted file will be uploaded on multiupload and as a torrent one week before the chain is to launch. Upon the launch date, a password will be revealed and everyone can begin mining the chain at the same time. Thoughts? CURRENT DEVELOPER BOUNTY: 0 BTC
ADDRESS TO DONATE TO DEVELOPER BOUNTY: 1DSbmKcWrir5zxXPZhjjZdVLsqLZxu2Qc4DEVELOPER BOUNTY WILL BE AWARDED TO THE FIRST PERSON OR GROUP TO FULLY IMPLEMENT THE PROTOCOL. PREMINES, IF ADDED BY THE DEVELOPER, WILL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO LAUNCH BY MODIFICATION OF THE GENESIS BLOCK.edit: Forgot to change to 7% decrease, fixed (lots of 3.5s and multiples in this protocol) PM me if interested in the development. |
|
|
|
|
mining now with a 6970 and i'm getting 486 kh/s at 900/1375, but i'm also getting about 0.1% hardware rejects. even if i lower the clock i still get them. is this normal? i tested the card with occt and it checks out okay, temps are in the 50s-60s.
|
|
|
|
Should I solo-mine with 2 m/h or is that no enough for a variance?. First day I got 5 blocks...that was 3 days ago. I havent found a thing since. I tested the miners by letting them fail-over to a pool and all seems well. What is the percentage of finding a block after 3 day? Has to be in the high 90s.
PS
It's totally random, I've mined with 2mh/s at the lower difficulties (~10) and sometimes I wouldn't see blocks for three days, and then suddenly i'd get 3, etc. Just let it keep running and don't check it for a while, when you come back in a week or so you'll have lots of blocks. |
|
|
|
|
Network hash rate hit 825mh/s today, we may see diff 30 relatively soon
|
|
|
|
er... while I certainly advocate using quality PSUs (+1 for the johnnyguru recommendation), why are you suggesting 850W or more for a few 5830s?  That machine isn't going to draw more than 500 watts at the plug unless they are HEAVILY overclocked/overvolted. My 3x 7950 system can easily pull 625-675 W... 5830 TDP is 170 W x 3 = 510 W, plus another 60-120 W for the board and CPU depending on what he has is 570-630 W. I always get 20-30% above my intended usage because efficiency is usually highest there and heat production is often less than it would be for a PSU with a lower DC output. For instance my AX550 with one 6970 on it and a celeron runs much hotter than my OCZ Z-series 850W with the 3x 7950 and a 1055T with 5 disabled cores. |
|
|
|
So, these steam keys are region-locked, and is for north america only?
TBH I have no idea if they're region locked or not, they seem to work fine for US and Canada though. |
|
|
|
|
cards on this rail:
+12V4@35A, +12V5@35A
board on any of the 20A rail
alternatively if the board is on the 35A rail by default just put a 5830 on any single 20A rail
|
|
|
|
I found out how to get 390k/hash from a 7870!!!
essentially you treat it JUST like tacotime did with his 7770's...
Why? a 7870 is almost exactly a "double" 7770... double the shaders, and double the memory bandwidth.
No matter what I tried before, I could never get above 320 khash.
Downclocking the core all the way to 920 while bumping memory up to 1360 did the trick along with intensity 19.
Funny thing is... raise the clock to 1000 and the mem to 1450... 310 khash....
LTC mining is truly an art...
Yes, I added the importance of core to memory clock ratios to the guide. It seems like it holds true for the 5xxx and 6xxx too, but someone will have to test it more extensively. I'm now getting 200+ kh/s out of a 7770 with intensity 20. Maybe now we can pull 650+ kh/s out of 7970s. Try a core of 950 MHz and a memory speed of 1525 MHz, you should pull over 400 kh/s I would think. |
|
|
|
This seems like a good idea in the spirit of making litecoins harder to mine with specialized hardware, which was the reason they went with Scrypt in the first place no?
That's correct, originally it was intended to be CPU minable and now it's GPU minable, and the ability to mine on GPUs and only GPUs is one of the major selling points for it right now. This will help maintain GPU minability. The problem is getting the user base to adopt this... BIPs are notoriously difficult to implement. Since this change will not occur until about another couple years though, all coblee really needs to do is simply add this to the blockchain parameters in the program and get users to download the new version. The miners will also have to be updated, but that should be trivial. Probably someone will need to do a testnet version as well that rapidly changes r values, so that we can ensure the pliability of r and test GPU mining with various r values. But these are all really minor changes. Coblee hasn't said anything about this one way or the other, maybe because he's too busy with other things. I really think now's the time to future-proof the chain, though. Whether or not the chain is ASIC minable or not remains to be seen, too. We know that a scrypt core only requires about 20,000 circuits (not much different than a SHA256 core). The clock rate of this core should be about 0.7x the memory. If an ASIC is only operating at 200-300 MHz, it shouldn't be hard to slap on some DDR3 memory clocked at ~800MHz and get vastly higher power efficiency than a GPU. The major difference will be that it will not be 100x faster than a GPU, and will probably only mine slightly faster than a GPU. The power consumption of this ASIC would probably be about 25-35W versus 200W for a GPU. That means you're looking at less than an order of magnitude enhancement in efficiency moving to ASICs, which should offput their widespread adoption for some time. The easiest way to make a chain non-ASIC minable is to make the circuits insanely large and force them to utilize all the onboard components of the AMD GPUs. It will need to be architecture specific to ensure that the entirety of the GPU is being used, and there will need to be extensive testing to ensure that it does not have vulnerabilities in circuit simplification. The construction of such an algorithm will be a complicated matter. Edit: I neglected to remember that SHA256 is included in the implementation used in Litecoin, so then I think ~45,000 circuits would be require for a whole core on the ASIC. |
|
|
|
Not saying i am hopping around but at the rates am earning on it is not worth it and the actual est the more i mine the less i see
I know, it's just awful paying that 0% fee  |
|
|
|
|
that's just what ran fastest for cgminer w/ the 7770. i should probably just install a newer version of it already.
|
|
|
|
|
round share difficulty is higher and dynamic. as network difficulty increases so does round share difficulty with this pool. this decreases traffic for you and the server.
the amount i've received in payouts is equal to the number of blocks i've solved, so i can verifying the pool works and i've been mining on it for over a month.
i would come back to this pool because with pplns you will not get rewards unless you keep mining within the pool for extended periods of time.
|
|
|
|
|
Edit: Closing this because the CUDA source code wasn't published yet, despite the paper being two years old... You'd probably find this pretty hard to do without it.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if it still does that with only one card in though, there's something fundamentally wrong with the card I would think. He should test it on another system before he buys a new PSU. I run 3x 7950s on an 850w PSU and I've never seen a hiccup.
|
|
|
|
So are people buying up litecoins in preparation for ASIC? Are people expecting the litecoin difficulty to go up even more in the next couple months?
It sounds like people can profitably invest in GPU's for litecoin mining just like the could bitxoin mining last year...
Perhaps FPGAs & ASIC will be programmed to mine for litecoins next?
1) yes. yes. in fact i know it will go up because i'm buying cards. 2) yes. 3) FPGA no ASIC yes, but not in the near future. |
|
|
|
|
I would guess so, I've seen no numbers so far though.
|
|
|
|
|
2x 7950s is cheaper and gets about the same rate
but the 7990 looks a lot cooler.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
