Promethium


July 09, 2013, 12:30:52 PM 

First mature Coin WoooHo!




maka
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 0


July 09, 2013, 12:36:16 PM 

If the block generating rate keeps at roughly 1/min, in one year there will be 365*24*60=525600 blocks. At difficulty 7 the reward of one block is 999/(7*7)=20. At difficulty 10 the reward of one block will be 999/(10*10)=10. In one year the difficulty will most likely be less than 10. If we assume the average reward for one block is roughly 16, then the total money supply should be 8409600, about 8~9 million.




eule


July 09, 2013, 12:43:33 PM 

I thought difficulty will rise a lot when if GPU miners appear? edit: if not when




techbytes
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1694
Merit: 1054
Point. Click. Blockchain


July 09, 2013, 12:55:08 PM 

I wouldn't bother overclocking just yet. My older laptop is finding more blocks than my i7 desktop. I'm going to fireup my intel atom and see what it can do. tb I tried with my atom but it kept showing 0 primespersec, even after 30 minutes. If you get it working, tell me! I'm getting 0 PPS with my intel atom as well but cpu is pegged at 100% so it is doing something. I'm going to let it run and will let you know if and when it gets a block. tb




simondlr


July 09, 2013, 12:55:56 PM 

Sunny, I have a question related to the scientific benefit of this altcoin. I did some further reading on what is being generated and on cunningham chains. It's a very rusty initial dive into this, so forgive me if I am wrong.
Primecoin won't really find new primes (for now at least), since they are so large to reasonably process in a wallet, and they would be at the end of longer chains, rather than the current length of chains (might be wrong assumptions here)?
The idea is to find plenty variations of cunningham chains in order to hopefully better understand the distribution of primes, and whether they could eventually give clues to the distribution of primes in general?




maka
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 0


July 09, 2013, 01:08:02 PM Last edit: July 09, 2013, 02:06:15 PM by maka 

I thought difficulty will rise a lot when GPU miners appear?
The prime number searching range for Primecoin is roughly 2^255 ~ 2^2000 ( 76 digits ~ 602 digits ). For the sake of simplicity, let's assume the primes are about 10^100. According to the Prime number theorem, the prime number distribution of this range is about 1 prime number in 230 integers. When difficulty grows from 7 to 8, it means the miner needs to find a prime chain of length 8 instead of 7, making the likelihood to 1/230 of before. In other words, it takes 230 times longer to find a 8chain than a 7chain if we assume the mining power remain the same. It would take 230*230*230 = 12167000 times longer to find a 10chain, that's 10 million times more difficult. Now let's take the GPU and other possible device into account. The GPU is very efficient of calculating hash, but in the specific case of primecoin, it doesn't seem have the same kind of advantage. Unless there are some specially designed hardware for prime searching, the mining speed at most will be less than 1000x faster. So it is quite clear that even with 10000x more miners equipped with monster machines, it is still not even close to reach difficulty 10.




Vorksholk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1713
Merit: 1029


July 09, 2013, 01:10:42 PM 

Upping personal bounty for a standalone cpuminer that is as fast OR faster than builtin primecoin one, and is capable of working with pools and getting shares to 2.5BTC. Must provide windows and linux binaries to the public, as well as source code.




Boing7898


July 09, 2013, 01:11:04 PM 

I was getting 100150 primespersec yesterday with my Phenom X4 965 but today I'm getting barely 50. Did something change? o.o




eule


July 09, 2013, 01:11:22 PM 

@ maka: Thanks for that explanation, makes sense! The quite quickly sinking block reward made me think that.




ReCat


July 09, 2013, 01:13:07 PM 

What will the value of this coin be with how few of them are in existence?

BTC: 1recatirpHBjR9sxgabB3RDtM6TgntYUW Hold onto what you love with all your might, Because you can never know when  Oh. What you love is now gone.




maka
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 0


July 09, 2013, 01:15:50 PM 

@ maka: Thanks for that explanation, makes sense! The quite quickly sinking block reward made me think that.
You are very welcome. Yeah, I didn't mined a single block in the last 24 hours




mustyoshi


July 09, 2013, 01:18:17 PM 

Left my somewhat optimized version running over night and came back to 3 additional blocks mined. Getting roughly ~60 pps with 500K sieve size and basic optimization flags. Running on a single thread of a stock i3 2120.




eule


July 09, 2013, 01:24:41 PM 

Left my somewhat optimized version running over night and came back to 3 additional blocks mined. Getting roughly ~60 pps with 500K sieve size and basic optimization flags. Running on a single thread of a stock i3 2120.
I tried ommiting two zeroes from nMaxSieveSize and got ~400800 pps using 6 cores of an old i7, quickly changed back to normal version though due to not finding blocks in a seconds interval. Now i fell i must try it again, either with one or two zeroes less than normal.




ReCat


July 09, 2013, 01:24:58 PM 

Left my somewhat optimized version running over night and came back to 3 additional blocks mined. Getting roughly ~60 pps with 500K sieve size and basic optimization flags. Running on a single thread of a stock i3 2120.
Dude. Post it. Keeping optimized miners secret is a bad move for your rep and the coin. Don't make me get my own optimized one to post.

BTC: 1recatirpHBjR9sxgabB3RDtM6TgntYUW Hold onto what you love with all your might, Because you can never know when  Oh. What you love is now gone.



eule


July 09, 2013, 01:26:16 PM 

He did: Has anybody else tried messing with the nMaxSieveSize variable? By chopping a zero off of it, I seemed to be able to get almost a 5x increase in pps. I know that reducing the sieve size would effectively reduce the amount of numbers checked for each run of the sieve and then reduce the likelyhood of finding a block, but is pps more important than search size?




nmersulypnem


July 09, 2013, 01:30:41 PM 

I thought difficulty will rise a lot when GPU miners appear?
The prime number searching range for Primecoin is roughly 2^100 ~ 2^2000 ( 100 digits ~ 2000 digits ). For the sake of simplicity, let's assume the primes are about 2^100. According to the Prime number theorem, the prime number distribution of this range is about 1 prime number in 230 integers. When difficulty grows from 7 to 8, it means the miner needs to find a prime chain of length 8 instead of 7, making the likelihood to 1/230 of before. In other word, it takes 230 times longer to find a 8chain than a 7chain if we assume the mining power remain the same. It would take 230*230*230 = 12167000 times longer to find a 10chain, that's 10 million times more difficult. Now let's take the GPU and other possible device into account. The GPU is very efficient of calculating hash, but in the specific case of primecoin, it doesn't seem have the same kind of advantage. Unless there are some specially designed hardware for prime searching, the mining speed at most will be less than 1000x faster. So it is quite clear that even with 10000x more miners equipped with monster machines, it is still not even close to reach difficulty 10. Where do you see that range in the code? I don't see it...




mustyoshi


July 09, 2013, 01:34:08 PM 

Left my somewhat optimized version running over night and came back to 3 additional blocks mined. Getting roughly ~60 pps with 500K sieve size and basic optimization flags. Running on a single thread of a stock i3 2120.
Dude. Post it. Keeping optimized miners secret is a bad move for your rep and the coin. Don't make me get my own optimized one to post. Other than the sieve size change. I also opted to pass the blockheader hash through the functions, instead of making calls to block>GetHeaderHash() every time. I'm not sure what kind of improvements that actually made since I also changed the sieve size when I first did it. But it stops me from running double SHA256 like 3 times more than I used to.




maka
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 0


July 09, 2013, 01:39:44 PM 

I thought difficulty will rise a lot when GPU miners appear?
The prime number searching range for Primecoin is roughly 2^100 ~ 2^2000 ( 100 digits ~ 2000 digits ). For the sake of simplicity, let's assume the primes are about 2^100. According to the Prime number theorem, the prime number distribution of this range is about 1 prime number in 230 integers. When difficulty grows from 7 to 8, it means the miner needs to find a prime chain of length 8 instead of 7, making the likelihood to 1/230 of before. In other word, it takes 230 times longer to find a 8chain than a 7chain if we assume the mining power remain the same. It would take 230*230*230 = 12167000 times longer to find a 10chain, that's 10 million times more difficult. Now let's take the GPU and other possible device into account. The GPU is very efficient of calculating hash, but in the specific case of primecoin, it doesn't seem have the same kind of advantage. Unless there are some specially designed hardware for prime searching, the mining speed at most will be less than 1000x faster. So it is quite clear that even with 10000x more miners equipped with monster machines, it is still not even close to reach difficulty 10. Where do you see that range in the code? I don't see it... <prime.h> static const CBigNum bnPrimeMax = (bnOne << 2000)  1; static const CBigNum bnPrimeMin = (bnOne << 255);




eule


July 09, 2013, 01:44:23 PM 

nMaxSieveSize = 1000000u ~130  230 pps nMaxSieveSize = 100000u ~230  400 pps nMaxSieveSize = 10000u ~350  800 pps Running the second one now, no idea if this will make me mine more blocks or none. Also not sure about the other thing you mentioned, goes above my head.




