How long did you leave it running for before checking? (and yeah my numbers were based on change in chains per day)
About 10 minutes, although I have just checked again and it is still 9% slower. I can also see the marked drop in the chains/day stats in debug.log. Weird. Upon further inspection the chainsperday number seems to jump around all over the place. anywhere from 0.58 to 0.89. Currently it seems to have stabilized at 0.77, which is still markedly higher than it was before the changes at 0.69. edit: are you using other settings (or default settings)? Also, sorry for thread jacking primedigger. We really should move this conversation back to the correct thread.
|
|
|
How long did you leave it running for before checking? (and yeah my numbers were based on change in chains per day)
|
|
|
I can confirm this gave me a speed up on my 4 machines as follows: 1: 6.88% 2: 4.52% 3: 4.69% 4: 8.42%
|
|
|
Thanks! Just as an aside, in c++ what does it mean to wrap a block of code in { } when there isn't a function definition, if, else, while, for, etc. statement? (in regards to the second block of code you mentioned to comment out, it seems wrapped in {} with no initial statement.
It's a nice simple way to limit the scope of any variables declared inside the {} to only be "visible" inside those brackets Ahhh. sweet, good to know. I don't write much c++, just learning it now.
|
|
|
If you can't wait for Mikaelh's fix: The fast div can be disabled easily, open prime.cpp in an editor and comment out the whole "if (fFastDiv) {...}" block in the function FermatProbablePrimalityTestFast and comment out the block after the comment "// Compute parameters for fast div test" in MineProbablePrimeChain.
The number of candidates it filtered out was depended on "nFastDivPrimes", which by default was chosen fairly low, thus only ~6% of candidates are (wrongly) discarded. But hp-9 is still doing unnecessary divisions on all candidates, so you can speed up hp-9 by commenting out those divisions.
Thanks! Just as an aside, in c++ what does it mean to wrap a block of code in { } when there isn't a function definition, if, else, while, for, etc. statement? (in regards to the second block of code you mentioned to comment out, it seems wrapped in {} with no initial statement.
|
|
|
So, correct me if i'm wrong here, but i thought the whole point of YAC was that at the current difficulty the GPUs should only be getting 0 H/s.
If the GPU miners are still doing better than the CPU miners, doesn't this completely invalidate the purpose of YAC?
|
|
|
total coins created could be the same. with bitcoin the block reward started out high when less hardware and workers were present. flipping the reward system and starting out small and increasing the reward as more hardware is thrown at it. the total coins created could be the same. instead of cutting the reward in half every four years it would increase slightly every month or so
You're focusing too much energy on pleasing the miners, and not enough energy on making a currency that would be a suitable compliment to the existing currencies on the market already. One of the biggest issues that people talk about with bitcoin is the idea that when the block rewards end, will there be enough transactions every block to warrent miners to continue spending money on electricity to continue mining. Bitcoin attempts to combat this issue by having a block reward that goes down over time, while at the same time (hopefully) the rewards from transaction fees go up overtime, and at some point when the block reward goes away completely, there will be a smooth transition for the miners, and they will not just immediately jump ship. What you are proposing would be the opposite of smooth. You would have a insanely huge block reward at the very last block before it stopped. Then suddenly you would go from say a block reward of 250,000 plus 25 for transaction fees, to 25. What's going to happen when that happens? Everyone will stop mining immediately and switch to another coin. Your network hashrate will drop to nearly nothing, and suddenly your coin will be extremely vulnerable to a 51% attack! It will be a sudden death scenario for your coin. With this in mind, the coin will never get off the ground in the first place, because everyone will be aware that one day the coin suddenly dies. The issue of block rewards going away at some point is a more interesting problem to solve. And Sunny King has made two attempts at solving it now. 1) PPC, with proof of stake rewards 2) Primecoin with a block reward that goes back up as difficulty goes down (exact opposite of what you are proposing) So, like i said earlier. If you really want to contribute something meaningful to the crypto currency community. Start by looking at the real issues with bitcoin, and trying to find solutions for them. And this doesn't mean focusing on the miners profits.
|
|
|
I think there might be a bug in hp-9 somewhere, so that the trial division doesn't work quite right in that version and sorts out wrong candidates. I will need to confirm this with the hp-9 sources without my changes, so that I'm sure I didn't introduce that bug. The CUDA trial division seems to be doing the right think and it doesn't find any candidates to discard, because if I understand it right, the sieve already did that. To put it in different words: this idea is likely a dead end.
I can confirm that fast division is buggy in hp9. It's also not needed in hp9 anymore because of Sunny's optimization. I'll remove the code in my next release. Thanks for spotting the bug. So uhh... should we not be using HP9 then?
|
|
|
no sources, only windows binaries? Is your FOURTH launch gonna be just like third, no sources, only windows binaries? Because that's kinda crypto currency requirement to provide sources. Without sources it is security by obcurity and centralisation, not by cryptography. That makes it NOT A CRYPTO COIN, NOT A BITCOIN ALT.
Neocoin uses the Bitcoin source code and will be 100% open source. But I want to be clear, the source code will be available only after a few minutes. I want to be sure that the network is ok, because clones will be numerous when the source will be released to the public. Nevertheless, some things will be difficult to copy (not just search and replace). So no Linux users or osx users will be allowed to mine your coin at the start. To me this sounds like it should be called windows coin, not neo coin. You have officially lost my support due to your extreme ignorance of operating system market share in the crypto currency world.
|
|
|
You will eventually end up with a block reward that looks like this http://bitcoindifficulty.com/The coin eventually be worth $0. There are lots of really cool ideas in the original implementation of bitcoin. Not all of them need to be "improved upon".
|
|
|
A little bit explanation... Neocoin is not dead and will be launched and relaunched!
Wait...wait...wait... So, you're saying there's going to be a 4th, and then a 5th launch? I know some people are disappointed but developpers become more disappointed when their work is not recognized.
Careful guys, he might start crying.
|
|
|
rBaf3gTeDUjD6WsmrEcUEs6EsrCvC52LX3
|
|
|
This article says exactly the same thing as you just posted here. This is such sensationalist writing, just to try to get clicks to your blog. You are adding nothing to the community but FUD.
|
|
|
This guy has been mining primecoin since day 1. He's just trying to drive the price down so he can buy more. i wouldn't put any stock in this drivel.
|
|
|
From a developer I'd expect testing on testnet first. But... $ strings -n 20 ~/.primecoin/testnet/blocks/blk00000.dat L]Sunny King - dedicated to Satoshi Nakamoto and all who have fought for the freedom of mankind That was the default string in his code and was assigned to the first block that was created. If you read the code you will see what i am talking about. And everyone knows that you need to create the genesis block to start the chain. So i don't think that he did anything wrong.
|
|
|
Really? i just vomited in my mouth a little bit.
|
|
|
'System message xxxxxx is now known as yyyyyy."
This is a security issue. I should be able to choose a nick without it identifying to the public what my username is. People could easily build a list of usernames from these useless announcements.
|
|
|
|