Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 04:48:26 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: I think this may be a step in the right direction  (Read 3084 times)
erinmars
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7


View Profile
May 31, 2011, 05:28:22 PM
 #1

http://www.cast-inc.com/ip-cores/encryption/sha-256/ I know what I think about it, what does everyone else think about it?
1480956506
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480956506

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480956506
Reply with quote  #2

1480956506
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480956506
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480956506

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480956506
Reply with quote  #2

1480956506
Report to moderator
brocktice
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 292


Apparently I inspired this image.


View Profile WWW
May 31, 2011, 05:53:30 PM
 #2

Requires far fewer gates than other solutions I've seen.

http://media.witcoin.com/p/1608/8----This-is-nuts

My #bitcoin-otc ratings: http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=brocktice&sign=ANY&type=RECV

Like my post? Leave me a tip: 15Cgixqno9YzoKNEA2DRFyEAfMH5htssRg
erinmars
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7


View Profile
May 31, 2011, 06:38:07 PM
 #3

Its pretty quick too, its the infrastructure between the chips that would be a pain. I think using an fpga as the router in between the chips would be the way to go (Some of the cheaper fpga chips have 800+ pins). Then you would have alot of options in terms of connecting the node to bitcoin (usb/ethernet/etc) for there are already preconfigured fpga modules ready to go for those types of interconnects. I personally like the idea of ethernet. Teach the fpga how to pull work from bitcoin over ethernet, all you would need is a router/switch/hub.
BitCointransfers
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 104


View Profile
May 31, 2011, 06:43:22 PM
 #4

Looks good, an already optimized SHA256 ASIC, so how much does this fucking thing cost.. and would like to hear ArtForz's comments on this one...
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
May 31, 2011, 06:52:54 PM
 #5

Looks good, an already optimized SHA256 ASIC, so how much does this fucking thing cost.. and would like to hear ArtForz's comments on this one...

Sadly, it is unlikely to be optimized for the way we use SHA256.  Most commercial implementations assume you want to push a big stream through them and keep a running hash.  We want to hash a tiny block twice, then start over with a slightly different tiny block.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
brocktice
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 292


Apparently I inspired this image.


View Profile WWW
May 31, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
 #6

Looks good, an already optimized SHA256 ASIC, so how much does this fucking thing cost.. and would like to hear ArtForz's comments on this one...

There's probably a reason he's doing something different. I've yet to ask him about an FPGA/ASIC solution and have him not already know about it and why it's not going to work well.

http://media.witcoin.com/p/1608/8----This-is-nuts

My #bitcoin-otc ratings: http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=brocktice&sign=ANY&type=RECV

Like my post? Leave me a tip: 15Cgixqno9YzoKNEA2DRFyEAfMH5htssRg
melco
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 62


View Profile
May 31, 2011, 07:25:32 PM
 #7

Looks good, an already optimized SHA256 ASIC, so how much does this fucking thing cost.. and would like to hear ArtForz's comments on this one...

Sadly, it is unlikely to be optimized for the way we use SHA256.  Most commercial implementations assume you want to push a big stream through them and keep a running hash.  We want to hash a tiny block twice, then start over with a slightly different tiny block.

Sorry for n00b question, but can we put two of them in line?

MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 31, 2011, 07:26:50 PM
 #8

Sent them an email just to judge whether they are aware of Bitcoin or not.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 31, 2011, 07:30:35 PM
 #9

Looks good, an already optimized SHA256 ASIC, so how much does this fucking thing cost.. and would like to hear ArtForz's comments on this one...

Sadly, it is unlikely to be optimized for the way we use SHA256.  Most commercial implementations assume you want to push a big stream through them and keep a running hash.  We want to hash a tiny block twice, then start over with a slightly different tiny block.

Sorry for n00b question, but can we put two of them in line?

Should be able to, but I can already see the disadvantage to ArtForz's own version.  This core uses 66 cycles to complete a hash, while ArtForz's is claimed to be a pipelined asic producing a hash on every cycle.  This is probably something intended to be a cheap co-processor in an ecommerce server, off-loading some calcs from the CPU in order to avoid bogging down the main website.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Bitbird
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 233



View Profile WWW
August 09, 2011, 04:16:11 PM
 #10

I'm considering set up a HPC mining rig start-up project. The rig will use floating point co-processor for FPGAs which could create compute blocks with 4096 processors (8 TFLOPs) in each unit.

kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
August 09, 2011, 04:21:33 PM
 #11

I'm considering set up a HPC mining rig start-up project. The rig will use floating point co-processor for FPGAs which could create compute blocks with 4096 processors (8 TFLOPs) in each unit.

You'd better research this a bit more.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
Bitbird
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 233



View Profile WWW
August 09, 2011, 04:31:27 PM
 #12

Hi kjj,
Do you suggest floating point co-processor would be no helped for Bitcoin mining?

(might open a subject for this question latter)

befuddled
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 74


View Profile
August 09, 2011, 06:14:42 PM
 #13

Quote
Do you suggest floating point co-processor would be no helped for Bitcoin mining?

Yes. Or at least I do.
enmaku
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile WWW
August 09, 2011, 06:18:24 PM
 #14

Hi kjj,
Do you suggest floating point co-processor would be no helped for Bitcoin mining?

(might open a subject for this question latter)

Bitcoin mining is mostly integer math. This is also the reason it's so laughable that BitcoinWatch uses some unknown algorithm to estimate the network speed in Teraflops.

JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
August 09, 2011, 06:22:41 PM
 #15

Sorry for n00b question, but can we put two of them in line?
They're optimized for performing hashes on large amounts of data, not for performing large amounts of hashes.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
PulsedMedia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 402


View Profile WWW
March 11, 2012, 11:35:06 AM
 #16

Was just looking about this ASIC, i see it has been mentioned here, but this seems to be the only thread?
Didn't anyone look in detail?

Afterall, it's a function of costs, if these chips are low powered and cheap, why can't you chain them?

Looking at these two:
http://ipcores.com/sha_ip_core.htm
http://www.cast-inc.com/ip-cores/encryption/sha-256/index.html

I guess single chip achieves atleast 4.24Mhash/s? That's quite weak, but if a single chip costs less than 1.7$ and consumes less than 0.2W it could be viable vs. current FPGA solutions. Hell, even at at 1W per chip it would achieve a nice ratio.
It has so few gates it can't consume much!

http://PulsedMedia.com - Semidedicated rTorrent seedboxes
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
March 11, 2012, 12:32:58 PM
 #17

Because all of the commercial SHA chips are designed for an operation that doesn't apply to bitcoin mining.

Bitcoin mining is done by hashing huge numbers of distinct two-block inputs.  SHA chips are designed to do small numbers of many-block inputs.

Think of the difference between a billion files of 1000 bytes each, and a thousand files of a billion bytes each.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
Dexter770221
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1026


View Profile
March 11, 2012, 01:23:25 PM
 #18

Those are IP cores that may be implemented into FPGA or ASIC.
Little math.
SIngle core = 640 slices in Spartan6 = 36 cores in LX150. One core = one pass of two needed in mining, so you get only 18 full cores. Each one running at 115MHz and proceed one hash in 132 cycles (115/132=0.87 hash/cycle). With 18 core that gives you 18*0.87=16 MH/s. Compare to 210 from ztex. I say it's a giant leap backwards!

Under development Modular UPGRADEABLE Miner (MUM). Looking for investors.
Changing one PCB with screwdriver and you have brand new miner in hand... Plug&Play, scalable from one module to thousands.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!