[XPM] [ANN] Primecoin Release - First Scientific Computing Cryptocurrency

[cloudstrife07]

Been mining since it launched, not a single fucking coin. This coin is bullshit. The rich getting richer 

there's people mining on a Sempron 145 processor and some laptop ones, and they managed to get coins.

blame on your luck. lol.

[1619180276]

1619180276

[1619180276]

1619180276

[ManBearPig]

PPS 100-130 on an i7-3770K.

I've set all cores while I'm doing nothing else other than browsing for the last 30 minutes now.

your pps will get a lot higher than that at times... what you have your clocked at?    ive been mining on my 3770k for 14 hours and only found two blocks.. i must be one of the unlucky ones

Yes I see it's reached 250 already, I've not overclocked it. Only been at it an hour now.

I've roped in my laptop to help too, on the hottest day of the year so far :p

[captainfuture]

i need a mac os x client

[TheSpiral]

i need a mac os x client

Does it not compile?

[captainfuture]

i am a noob  

can u say me how i can get it run on mac os x ?

[paulthetafy]

sooooo why does this not work on amazon ec2 instances? 

[Buratino]

Found 2 blocks in 12 hours on i-2500K on stock freq with 4GB RAM and Win7 32-bit. It produces 113-140 PPS.
What are the real rpcport and port numbers in this coin?

[mik3]

Lol im unlucky. Ran for 10 hours on an i7, ~90-110 PPS and no coins found.

[supert]

Tried mining for a laugh here with 7 cores, found 2 block in 1 hour. Am I just lucky?

[blastbob]

sooooo why does this not work on amazon ec2 instances? 

Works on EC2.. I found 1 block with Amazon. But i only ran them for an hour.

[cryptohunter]

Tried mining for a laugh here with 7 cores, found 2 block in 1 hour. Am I just lucky?

Yes i think so

Also  my friend is pretty lucky too. His g2020 processor has found 3 blocks in the same time as my i5 3570 so anyone can have a chance even with a weaker cpu it seems

[eule]

Found 6 blocks overnight with 6 cores of an i7 930, ~150 primespersec. Now nothing for a few hours.

[smoothie]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't there already an existing set of prime numbers that are known?

Would this not be applicable to the proof of work function here?

Perhaps I am thinking about it wrong. I read through Sunny's paper. Thanks Sunny for the document.

I dont seem to understand how your proof of work is not exploited by existing known prime numbers that could be easily ported into the hash function to generate blocks.

What am I missing? 

[bidji29]

The recompense seems to diminish overtime.

08/07/2013 01:31 - 20.32 xpm
08/07/2013 06:36 - 20.16
08/07/2013 07:23 - 20.13
08/07/2013 09:57 - 20.04
08/07/2013 13:13 - 19.89

Edit:  i got a new one !
08/07/2013 13:23 - 19.88

I don't think it's random, maybe it's explained in the paper?

[VeeMiner]

This prime number calculation is interesting, but it doesn't seem like a game-changer to me. I mean it's not really that useful.

[smoothie]

The recompense seems to diminish overtime.

08/07/2013 01:31 - 20.32 xpm
08/07/2013 06:36 - 20.16
08/07/2013 07:23 - 20.13
08/07/2013 09:57 - 20.04
08/07/2013 13:13 - 19.89

That is supposed to happen. PPC uses the same minting model. Higher the difficulty less coins minted. reverse is true.

[ig0tik3d]

The recompense seems to diminish overtime.

08/07/2013 01:31 - 20.32 xpm
08/07/2013 06:36 - 20.16
08/07/2013 07:23 - 20.13
08/07/2013 09:57 - 20.04
08/07/2013 13:13 - 19.89

That is supposed to happen. PPC uses the same minting model. Higher the difficulty less coins minted. reverse is true.

Code:

int64 static GetBlockValue(int nBits, int64 nFees)
{
    uint64 nSubsidy = 0;
    if (!TargetGetMint(nBits, nSubsidy))
        error("GetBlockValue() : invalid mint value");
    return ((int64)nSubsidy) + nFees;
}

// Get mint value from target
// Primecoin mint rate is determined by target
//   mint = 999 / (target length ** 2)
// Inflation is controlled via Moore's Law
bool TargetGetMint(unsigned int nBits, uint64& nMint)
{
    nMint = 0;
    static uint64 nMintLimit = 999llu * COIN;
    CBigNum bnMint = nMintLimit;
    if (TargetGetLength(nBits) < nTargetMinLength)
        return error("TargetGetMint() : length below minimum required, nBits=%08x", nBits);
    bnMint = (bnMint << nFractionalBits) / nBits;
    bnMint = (bnMint << nFractionalBits) / nBits;
    bnMint = (bnMint / CENT) * CENT;  // mint value rounded to cent
    nMint = bnMint.getuint256().Get64();
    if (nMint > nMintLimit)
    {
        nMint = 0;
        return error("TargetGetMint() : mint value over limit, nBits=%08x", nBits);
    }
    return true;
}

[Sunny King]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't there already an existing set of prime numbers that are known?

Would this not be applicable to the proof of work function here?

Perhaps I am thinking about it wrong. I read through Sunny's paper. Thanks Sunny for the document.

I dont seem to understand how your proof of work is not exploited by existing known prime numbers that could be easily ported into the hash function to generate blocks.

What am I missing? 

This is a common misunderstanding about primes. Primes are very abundant per prime number theorem. There is no such thing as 'prime table' at the scale of a hundred digits, as there are too many of them, like 1 out of a couple hundreds.

[vinne81]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't there already an existing set of prime numbers that are known?

Would this not be applicable to the proof of work function here?

Perhaps I am thinking about it wrong. I read through Sunny's paper. Thanks Sunny for the document.

I dont seem to understand how your proof of work is not exploited by existing known prime numbers that could be easily ported into the hash function to generate blocks.

What am I missing? 

This is a common misunderstanding about primes. Primes are very abundant per prime number theorem. There is no such thing as 'prime table' at the scale of a hundred digits, as there are too many of them, like 1 out of a couple hundreds.

So mining with some CPU cores, is it worth it at diff 7? You guys still getting something?

[TheSpiral]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't there already an existing set of prime numbers that are known?

Would this not be applicable to the proof of work function here?

Perhaps I am thinking about it wrong. I read through Sunny's paper. Thanks Sunny for the document.

I dont seem to understand how your proof of work is not exploited by existing known prime numbers that could be easily ported into the hash function to generate blocks.

What am I missing? 

This is a common misunderstanding about primes. Primes are very abundant per prime number theorem. There is no such thing as 'prime table' at the scale of a hundred digits, as there are too many of them, like 1 out of a couple hundreds.

So mining with some CPU cores, is it worth it at diff 7? You guys still getting something?

It's been at 7 since the start. Same chance as at launch.