The basic idea is simple: replace the internet that we have how with one that is peer-to-peer, like bitTorrent. But instead, dynamic websites. And the peers that host get paid in a virtual currency. But it is much more advanced than that, I have written a whitepaper to explain the idea.

please criticise THE WHITEPAPER (It's on github so you can add to it).

The world-wide-web is more than 30 years old, and many of the protocols that worked then are antiquated now. So I propose a new censorship free, peer-to-peer replacement of the world-wide-web. One we can create together and will have a seamless transition from the current internet.

main features:
* seamless transition from the current world-wide-web.
* indestructible hosting - similar to bitTorrent files but active websites.
* massively distributed - so no single point of failure.
* consensus - peers vote on changes.
* payment for peers to participate.
* censorship free.
* redundant and cheap storage.
* process massive computation tasks.


BTW, it's the VERY first public draft, and a lot of the details are still locked in my head or being argued about.

wow. you have a lot of requests for features. so feel bad for asking. But this is very very easy to implement (I am a web programmer)

you have an alarm, could you add a tick box "connection failure" and if the time since last update goes higher than 1 minute, make the alarm go off . easy to add, and super useful.

the alarm doesn't work reliably also, seems that if it keeps going off, and you then change the limits, it will not go off next time :-S

thanks, great work, use it all the time

what will the hash rate of the 16 chip unit be? 4GH? I have no idea.

how do you get 10'000, when it says 2124 remaining, 4000 reserved?

have 7876 been ordered? are you not updating the 1st post or what is happening?

I am 70% about ordering, as the risk seems worth it, and I am just going to clarify everything first . no offence, it's the internet. Also my Q's and your A's may convince other buys to opt in.

so options are a 1 chip unit, 16 chip unit, and 80. only 16 is for sure? what is the expected hash rate for the 16 chip unit?

can these units work in tandem? are they USB?

also, I guess the software is already prepared?

if I order chips, then I can opt for you to hold onto them and make a unit then send me that?

I am considering setting up a website that brings ex-miners a way to make money cracking WPA passwords for penetration testing.

what I was thinking, is making it like an ebay for hash cracking, post a bounty for a hash, and then anyone can complete it for the bounty.

I know one site exists, but it is fairly dead and no work has been done on it.

do you think anyone would be interested in putting there GPU stacks to good use and earning bounties on WPA password cracking?

thanks for answering one part of my post, but really, the other parts were more pressing, as I can risk joining for a few chips, but I want to know if I am supposed to make a unit, or if that is in hand, and I just get a completed unit?

need some clarification.

so as far as I understand, you are planing to make a complete unit, then ship them. are we supposed to fill the chip order, then at a later date pay more to get it placed into a device that you construct? or is it only if we want the chips to make a device ourselves?

also, you say 10'000, but your orders page says: Reserved: 4000, Remaining: 2412

how much would the bigest device you have planed cost in total (euros) with chips? from what I have read it's a 16 chip design?

so I pay ecsrow to John K and then when you pay order it goes to avalon, then I wait, 10'000 get delivered to you, and you don't run away with them, make units, and send them out? does seem risky.

I am thinking about it, I do like the idea of getting the chips out of the hands of slow shady companies and knowing what is going on in a more transparent way, but I do have a lot of questions.

I started a thread in the newbie section, but I would rather discuss it in it's rightful place.

Before I start, I have no desire to debate ASIC. As it's not the point of the question, first I am slightly doubting anything will transpire, and even if it does, I would like to talk about FPGA's and not theoretical ASIC's.

now, I am interested in making an array of FPGA chips that mine coins, and every where I look people are unrolling and pipeling to achieve 1 or 2 bitcoin mining (2x sha) cores. What I am wondering is what happens if you go the other way, and instead try and make a sha core as small as possible (looped and hand designed) then repeat it many times in cheaper FPGA chips to make a massively parallel set up instead.

the way I see it, it's a trade of, speed of one complete bitcoin hash vs amount of logic blocks used, with a threshold of the maximum logic blocks of the FPGA chip.

a simple example would be that having 2 sha cores linked up to do 1 bitcoin hash is simular is speed (I think) to 2x one sha core doing 1 bitcoin hash in 2 steps. only difference is that one can fit on a chip with half as many logic blocks. or am I wrong?

any real numbers to argue for or against what I propose?

so it's not worth considering the option that asic's are just hot air and will not arrive any time soon?

when you say it's an old debate, could you link me to anything saying that unrolled is better, as I have only seen people aiming to unroll, not why it's been picked as better than massively parallel looped.

I agree that ASIC's could change everything, but until even 1 appears, they are pure speculation, and most are probably pre-order scams / collapse before any are sold.

so until then FPGA is the only real bleading edge.

anyway, still no one willing to try and debate why it's better to unroll than have massively parallel. any takers?

I don't agree with the linked thread, sure if you want an easy way to make money, then GPU mine, but FPGA is the new front of development.

I would like to know if there is something I am missing in my way of looking at it, but instead of unrolling, try and use as few logic blocks as possible and then repeat that many times INSTEAD, as there is no reason why the hash has to be done quickly, many hashes at the same time is just as good.

I would like to make input to the custom FPGA mining discussions, I am considering making a massively parallel fpga stack.

I have only just joined this forum, but I have been on other bitcoin forums, and have been using bitcoin for 2 years now. mined in pools for a bit, sold some on ebay.

I understand the maths behind bitcoin fairly well, and will provide interesting input to the fpga threads.

I have been considering making an array of custom fpga miners, and from my research it seems the focus is on doing the operation (2xSHA2) in as few clock cycles. The way I see it is it's a trade of between number of logic blocks used and clock cycles to do one full operation, added to that is the price for a chip that has enough logic blocks to have a fully unrolled (and pipelined) design.

I would like anyone to explain why it's not just as useful to NOT unroll and NOT pipeline it, instead make the smallest possible version (looped version with only one sha2 core) and repeat it many many times in the FPGA, so it's massively parallel and doesn't need the more expensive chips, but could instead be done in many cheaper ones. as it's not an issue of how many clock cycles it takes, more how many operations can be done in a certain time, so for example if it takes 100th of the time in a unrolled version, but it 100 times bigger, then having 100 of them would do as many hashes.

You might think I'm stupid, but I do understand.

consider this simple example:
say you make an unrolled SHA2 core, it would need to run twice, but it's twice the size, so 1x 2 unrolled sha2 cores joined to do it in one go is equal to 2x one unrolled sha2 cores doing them looped.

basically I am considering making a very small (logic blocks used) unit that can be repeated lots and many fpga's can be made into a massive array, processing many hashes at once, but slower.

an explanation of what I'm messing up in my maths\understanding would be good