Ah thanks smooth, then perhaps some specific optimizations for ARM will then bridge the performance somewhat? I though that ARM was still lacking in this respect, had only found a couple of specialty processor models that are specifically used in security appliances and feature AES-NI, I did not look into similar/equivalent instruction sets native to ARM.

I understand how this is just significant towards mining and not particularly about chain verification.
My suggestion was thinking in lines of having mobile or low-power ARM devices as contributing miners and not just nodes. Say, a tiny ARM PC running a low power solo-mining node (with meaningful hashrate and returns), or likewise a mobile device.

                              (((((((((o)))))))))
                        ((((                           )))
[ ALICE ]        ((       Vaporware Cloud      )))          [ BOB ]
     |                  ((((                              ))                  |
     |                        ((((((((((((o)))))))))                     |
     |                                                                          |
     |___________ Magical Blockless TXs ____________|


_{Sorry, could not resist. I do hope that one day we get to see an actual implementation and the expectations turn out to be properly set.}

Looking at this exchange about mining performance reminds me of something that I wanted to ask a while ago:
With the change into Cryptonight-Lite, we have improved performance on processors with smaller cache. However, I understand that for an equal number of cores and similar cache sizes, the factor most impacting mining performance, is the presence (or absence) of AES-NI capability.

If we were to ever aim that a mobile device could be a mining contributor to the AEON network, I think we'd do wonders if we managed to bridge the performance gap between the popular x86-64 desktop, and the usually ARM-based mobile and lightweight platforms. I would imagine that this would require switching the PoW internals that are favored by AES-NI, and replacing these cryptographic operations with ones that would be better matched in ARM performance, all the while not introducing a significant advantage for the GPU realm.

Any thoughts, inputs, crazy(er) ideas? I realize we just recently had a hard fork to implement Cryptonight-Lite, but hopefully most will agree that open minded discussions usually bring about the healthiest development environment. 

Looks like we've been missing davidlatapie.

While I'm around here: I'd like to see the MEW funds invested on monerodice or lending at polo. In the grand scheme of things, it's probably not worth much, but still, would feel good to know that the contributions towards MEW are actively participating in the Monero economy.
I'm well aware that a slice was initially directed towards development. I'm referring to the portion that was not put to use (AFAIK).

Maybe something to think about if when we get moving again... 

Ah, much better, that is perfectly reasonable.  

Upping my bid to 1.1 BTC then.
Edit: Bid removed.

Ok then... I bid 500 XMR.

Would be nice to have some sort of target date to close the auction. I did read the op, just that being completely open-ended, I don't think I care enough to be following up on this once other bids come in... Best of luck anyhow.

Muito porreiro MalMen, sim Sr! 

Cool. Even if you could just run through one card, it would be interesting information to have, adding to your efficiency tables 

@bathrobehero:
Have you ever tried undervolting the 970? On my 980's I run with lowered voltage, and that allows me the same (high) clocks with reduced power usage and lower temperatures. My power meter broke, so I haven't measured yet the different efficiency levels, but generally speaking, I think that you'll gain the most by tweaking voltage.

Not Speculation: dukey8 is a troll account created for the specific purpose of chasing around Smooth and Fluffy, posting garbage as he goes along, just look at the post history for the user. Enough wasting our time please, shoo troll...

Speculation: I think AEON has all the necessary ingredients to venture into development opportunities that would be too risky or controversial for Monero to tackle. It's generally worthless now, which makes the upside potential all the more attractive. 

I don't want to fuel any further this off-topic venture into XDN, but personally, I will never dismiss the name choice at launch as just a creative form of scam. Maybe it was not intentional, maybe it was, I don't see that there will ever be a way to be certain.

The reality is, that ducknote, had none of the appeal, or the image/presentation that digitalnote claims today. For that reason, myself, and certainly many others, dismissed ducknote mining entirely, during what was - by far - the highest reward period.

So at best: very poor choice of naming will have most definitely contributed to an inferior initial distribution, and this was further aggravated by the quick drop in mining returns.
At worse: it was a creative scam, posing as just another meme coin void of any worth throughout the most important/rewarding emission period, only to become all serious and meaningful by the time that rewards have dropped significantly.

Some of the recent ideas or developments might be worthwhile. I haven't been much available, but would like to look into how PoS is being approached there. I'd love to one day see a proper cryptonote implementation with both PoW and PoS, but one that does not affect the privacy features/specification in any substantial measure (unless it improves upon them).

Powered USB-type risers do not have the input PCIe power pins connected, they have an external power port on the riser itself, usually a SATA or MOLEX connector. This way, both riser and card get all power feeding directly from the PSU, and nothing out of the motherboard.

These risers kill 2 birds with one stone:
You're not using high power over a flat ribbon cable - which is a serious fire hazard btw -, and you're not using power off the motherboard PCIe slots, so you can use whatever motherboard you want, and not just the specialty flavors. In both aspects, it is much better (and safer) to have all power drawn straight off the PSU.

Motherboards with extra PCIe power are a waste in my mind, since you cannot fill-up all PCIe slots without using risers. And as soon as you need to use risers, go with powered ones, or go home. 

Of course they do... Those risers are not made for high power cards.
The very worst card for such risers, is the 750/750TI without external power, as the card is entirely powered from PCIe, but even with externally powered cards, those risers are known to fry quite frequently.

Were you lucky enough to not get any damage beyond the risers themselves?

ty justscrewit and asad777 

Thanks!

FWIW I would also be ok with a blocktime increase to 2 minutes.

Previous poster: variance on AEON has more to do with current hashrate concentration, than it does with the current blocktime per se. I'm not saying that's good or bad though. The greater the blocktime interval, the greater is the absolute result of variance (though percentage-wise it is always the same)...

Well, one thing I see differently, is that I do not consider that Skynodes should ever truly affect exchange rate.

Let's then assume for a moment that the collateral was 1000 GSY. Then 6 months down the road, there is a large influx of new users and players joining the platform, and the price moves largely upwards. At that point, some people will prefer to stop running a Skynode, and might sell.
Importantly, this would be the case (of these holders selling) had their balance been locked for staking (regular PoS), or locked as collateral (Skynode). In any case, if the collateral was 1000 GSY, between some people that sell, and some that hold, there's always room for many (many) hundreds of Skynodes at this collateral range.

With this in mind, I don't see that there would ever be a reason to hard fork later on to reflect updated exchange value and adjust the FIAT cost of setting up a Skynode. The cost of running a Skynode should automatically balance itself between the GSY exchange rate, and natural competition with other Skynodes (more Skynodes = lower returns for each one, while less Skynodes = higher return for each one).

I will add however that I don't think this particular element "makes or breaks" Genesyscoin in any meaningful way. I'll remain a holder, no matter what value you decide for Skynode collateral. I believe that you are pursuing much more important things with Confront and the Arena game, so I'm most definitely sticking around 

So anyhow, I put my vote down for a 1000 GSY collateral.
Would be great of other people would voice their opinion, or even just a brief post to express preference for some amount.

Cheers!

@GSYTeam:

I kindly request that you reconsider making the Skynode collateral significantly larger.
For example: at 1000 GSY per Skynode, with just 10% of the current supply locked in Skynodes, we're talking of about a potential 160 Skynodes. Just for completeness of the example: with 100% of the current supply locked in Skynodes, the potential maximum would be for 1600 Skynodes today (on the same 1000 GSY collateral). At these rates, the current daily coin generation allows for another Skynode every ~ day and a half.

My gripe with a tiny collateral (such as 200 GSY), is that it places a premium reward and network relevance, within reach of uninterested parties (less than 2 USD worth of collateral commitment to run a node). Someone can control of very significant amount of Skynodes, spending literally peanuts to reach that position.
This is a risk vector, and it is implicitly counteracted by making the collateral large enough that any Skynode is economically incentivized to act honestly.

Perhaps a community vote would be reasonable? I'm not suggesting that the community decides, just that votes are expressed so that you take them into account towards whatever decision you ultimately take.
My suggestions would be 1000 GSY (absolute minimum), though I would much prefer a neat and round 5000 GSY. Could you please start a pool using these or any other input values so that the community would express their preference?

Thanks!

Emphasis mine. Sadly, that is just the way it is (not all miners, but certainly the majority).

No t-nelson. The way a donation works, is that I am the one saying: Thank you, just saying it through bits and bytes of magic internet money (I think there was even an altcoin by this name  ). The more developers contribute, the more fun and toys for all of us miners with Nivida cards (sidenote: I'm not even using this fork or ever solo'ing).

You do have my number already, right? 

My node has been down recently, but will be getting back online soon enough!
Would be wonderful if we had an accelerated path to the DB version, though perhaps this is too cutting edge yet?

One advantage of being relatively small, is that we should be able to tolerate a higher risk factor with new and cutting edge features (within reason ofc, I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on what risk is tolerable vs intolerable).