 |
June 03, 2011, 08:25:59 PM |
|
Similar to pool hopping, I was questioning a parallel request versus more serial sequences.
Using simple numbers, let's say that I have one box (be it FPGA, desktop, CPU or GPU) that mines 1MHs. If I magically increased the speed to 5MHs, I am doing work requests for individual blocks and processing that work in a serial manner (that is, on a single processing source with no threads/timeslicing/multicore/multiprocessor).
If I instead had 5 x 1MHs boxes, I would be doing 5 times the number of requests in parallel.
Regardless of power and other factors... if I hear someone try to proselytize KWh/cost one more time I'm seriously going to have a breakdown.... what do you think the variance would be in these methods?
In small experiments (100MHs) over two months, I seem to have received more payouts with parallel computation rather than a single source of equal computation. Given that it could be pure coincidence, I was wondering if there is a possible justifiable explanation as to why which would be better (other than KW/h nonsense).
There is the obvious benefit of health to the Bitcoin network if the parallel sources are co-located. That is, if I have 100MHs in my bedroom, it's much better for the health of the network if I have 100 x 1 nodes scattered across datacenters. Consider me more of a philanthropist than redbull-fueled-overclocking-profit-rabid-miner.
|
