It would possibly add some botnet protection too, as users are much more likely to notice a process consuming all their memory.  |
|
|
|
|
From what I heard scrypt miners use the L3 cache of the GPU/CPU, not the RAM. Could it be possible that if enough memory has to be used the performance difference between GPUs and CPUs disappears?
Also, an algo favoring lots of RAM could be interesting, if one exists.
|
|
|
|
bump  I am really pleased how well our pool is running lately, no idea what you did rav3n but it was awesome. Anyone getting sick of Primecoin and it's high difficulty, throw some CPU cycles our way and get some easy YAC. |
|
|
|
|
Well releasing the CPU miner to the public could hopefully lead to some more pools, right?
|
|
|
|
I'd rather solo-mine right now than wait for partners to get a pool up.  |
|
|
|
|
At mcxnow someone said the pool has a vulnerability that is exploited by a few people, something with submitting lots of worthless but valid shares after doing a small mod to the miner, can someone confirm or deny?
|
|
|
|
I'd like setsievesize and setsievepercentage |
|
|
|
Hmm i run at 2048000 on debian x64. |
|
|
|
That's what the wired article i posted is about.  |
|
|
|
SunnyKing or anyone else with a good grasp on how primecoin mining works, do you think the GPY sieve described in this article http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/twin-primes/all/ and this http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0508185 paper could be useful i.e. faster than the sieve of Eratosthenes? From the wired article: The Sieve of Eratosthenes works perfectly to identify primes, but it is too cumbersome and inefficient to be used to answer theoretical questions. Over the past century, number theorists have developed a collection of methods that provide useful approximate answers to such questions.
“The Sieve of Eratosthenes does too good a job,” Goldston said. “Modern sieve methods give up on trying to sieve perfectly.”
GPY developed a sieve that filters out lists of numbers that are plausible candidates for having prime pairs in them. To get from there to actual prime pairs, the researchers combined their sieving tool with a function whose effectiveness is based on a parameter called the level of distribution that measures how quickly the prime numbers start to display certain regularities.
The level of distribution is known to be at least ½. This is exactly the right value to prove the GPY result, but it falls just short of proving that there are always pairs of primes with a bounded gap. Since we don't try to prove that there is an infinite number of primechains, it should work, right? Discussed here too https://bitcointalk.org |
|
|
|
From the wired article: The Sieve of Eratosthenes works perfectly to identify primes, but it is too cumbersome and inefficient to be used to answer theoretical questions. Over the past century, number theorists have developed a collection of methods that provide useful approximate answers to such questions.
“The Sieve of Eratosthenes does too good a job,” Goldston said. “Modern sieve methods give up on trying to sieve perfectly.”
GPY developed a sieve that filters out lists of numbers that are plausible candidates for having prime pairs in them. To get from there to actual prime pairs, the researchers combined their sieving tool with a function whose effectiveness is based on a parameter called the level of distribution that measures how quickly the prime numbers start to display certain regularities.
The level of distribution is known to be at least ½. This is exactly the right value to prove the GPY result, but it falls just short of proving that there are always pairs of primes with a bounded gap. Since we don't try to prove that there is an infinite number of primechains, it should work, right? |
|
|
|
|
Dunno about UNOCS, must see actions first. If you think they will deliver, sure, but I'd keep holding some XPM.
|
|
|
|
|
Price has gone from 0.001 to 0.1 to 0.002 to 0.15 to 0.06 to 0.125 to the price you see now. Looks like it stabilizes.
Can't say much about UNOCS, haven't seen anything besides a counter so far.
|
|
|
|
Mikaelh, do you think the GPY sieve described in this article http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/twin-primes/all/ and this http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0508185 paper could be useful i.e. faster than the sieve of Eratosthenes? From the wired article: The Sieve of Eratosthenes works perfectly to identify primes, but it is too cumbersome and inefficient to be used to answer theoretical questions. Over the past century, number theorists have developed a collection of methods that provide useful approximate answers to such questions.
“The Sieve of Eratosthenes does too good a job,” Goldston said. “Modern sieve methods give up on trying to sieve perfectly.”
GPY developed a sieve that filters out lists of numbers that are plausible candidates for having prime pairs in them. To get from there to actual prime pairs, the researchers combined their sieving tool with a function whose effectiveness is based on a parameter called the level of distribution that measures how quickly the prime numbers start to display certain regularities.
The level of distribution is known to be at least ½. This is exactly the right value to prove the GPY result, but it falls just short of proving that there are always pairs of primes with a bounded gap. Since we don't try to prove that there is an infinite number of primechains, it should work, right? Discussed here too https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=252636.0 |
|
|
|
I wonder if this GPY sieve can be used for primecoin, i think it should and be much faster too. |
|
|
|
i7 930 doesn't have 7 cores, it has 4 cores plus 4 HT threads.
You're right of course, thanks! I use genproclimit 6 or 7 though in Linux or the CPU won't be used fully, that's what made me think 8 cores. My pps went far down too btw, chainspermin is stable. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
