Bitcoin Forum
June 19, 2018, 09:25:01 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Help me out with variance in parallel, block size, etc  (Read 733 times)
Jr. Member
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0

View Profile
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.

█ DECENT FOUNDATION █ ICO ⏰ 10th of September (
Pages: [1]
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!